Thanks for reading more closely than I initially did!
Am I correct in thinking that P300 signal is distinct from ECoG that the
article is referencing? Then we really are talking about 2 different
systems in any case.
But the last sentence seems to reference that this system is not
implanted on the cortex. "The device under development also carries
less risk than BCIs that surgically implant electrodes in the brain".
Do you know if the P300 is any closer to being commercially available?
My understanding was that one could purchase a system, but overall, it
was still pretty raw. I talked with them a little bit about doing some
work on it to interface it with better AAC strategies than one character
at a time.
Thanks Jane!
Ed Hitchcock OTR/L
Technology Center
Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jane Huggins
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:30 PM
To: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Assistive Technology] BCI Licensed to Private Firm --
Commercial Product on the Horizon?
I'm aware of the P300 interface for typing using BCI2000 that was
demonstrated at RESNA last year. I'm actually using it in my lab right
now. It is very impressive, though its top typing speed is still
measured
in characters per minute and usually single digits at that. But, it
works
and it is high time someone commercialized it.
However, I don't think from the article that this is what Neurolutions
is
working on. It specifically states that their device uses ECoG and all
other references to Neurolutions that I can find on the web talk about
an
implanted system. While the last sentence of paragraph 4 does reference
scalp electrodes, it does so as a comparison with the claim that the
device they're developing requires less training than scalp based
systems.
So, I don't think Neurolutions is developing a P300 interface as a
commercial product. Also, all previous BCI work from Washington
University in St. Louis has been ECoG work (and good stuff at that).
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%
Jane Huggins, Ph.D. "If, through some inscrutable act of providence, I
were to lose all my faculties save one, I would
choose to retain the gift of speech, for through
it
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx I would soon regain all the rest."-- Daniel
Webster
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% http://www-personal.umich.edu/~janeh
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Edward Hitchcock wrote:
> Actually, I saw these guys at RESNA last year and was very impressed.
>
> This particular system does NOT implant directly on the cortex, it is
> all external scalp stuff. (The article cites that as well, last
> sentence of 4th paragraph).
>
> The system I saw was not being used to control cursor or isolated
> movement. I hesitate to try to describe via email, as it is not
really
> any kind of scanning either. But it was reliable for slow production
of
> text, and they had it connected with WordQ to speed it up a little.
>
> Basically it works that when the desired letter is highlighted, (and
> they are highlighted in an apparently random pattern; it is not
scanning
> as we think of it at all) the client responds with an "Ah hah"
thought.
> Since the Ah hah thought brainwave always occurs at a reliable time
> following the presentation of the highlighted letter, the computer
would
> know that was the intended letter.
>
> The one I saw was not using motor control of any kind (meaning no
motor
> cortex) and I am probably doing a very poor job of describing this.
(I
> want to say the signal was called P300).
>
> Probably only beneficial for very severely locked in folks, past
eyegaze
> and any form of switch. I think a reasonable fast switch scanner
would
> still be faster than this system as well.
>
> But I was positively impressed with it for our folks with no switch
> access.
>
> Ed Hitchcock OTR/L
> Technology Center
> Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jane Huggins
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:41 PM
> To: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Assistive Technology] BCI Liscenced to Private Firm --
> Commerical Product on the Horizon?
>
> Interesting. This is the first I've heard of this. But, everyone
> should
> note that the proposed BCI is using ECoG as it's input. The article
> doesn't do a very good job of explaining that ECoG comes from
electrodes
>
> implanted inside the skull but not penetrating the brain (usually the
> electrodes are placed subdurally, ie under the membranes covering the
> brain). I worked with ECoG for many years and think that ECoG will
> provide the best signals for BCIs. However, they require a fairly
major
>
> surgery to implant. So, while this is an exciting step, I wanted to
> make
> sure you realize the model of the system they're proposing.
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> %%
> Jane Huggins, Ph.D. "If, through some inscrutable act of providence,
I
> were to lose all my faculties save one, I would
> choose to retain the gift of speech, for
through
> it
> xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx I would soon regain all the rest."-- Daniel
> Webster
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% http://www-personal.umich.edu/~janeh
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Antoinette Verdone wrote:
>
>> Anyone have any further info on this?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
http://www.health.state.ny.us/press/releases/2009/2009-03-25_brain_comp_
>> interface_tech_neurolutions.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Antoinette Verdone, MSBME, ATP
>>
>> Assistive Technology Specialist
>>
>> The ALS Association, Greater New York Chapter
>>
>> NEW ADDRESS:
>>
>> 42 Broadway, Suite 1724
>>
>> New York, NY 10004
>>
>>
>>
>> Phone: 212-720-3054
>>
>> Fax: 212-619-7409
>>
>> Email: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> www.als-ny.org
>>
>>
>>
>> "One cannot consent to creep when one has the impulse to soar" --
> Helen
>> Keller
>>
>>
>>
>>
> This e-mail, and any attachments, is intended exclusively for the
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain legally
privileged and/or confidential information, including but not limited to
protected health information.
> If the information contains legally privileged or confidential
information, you have an obligation to comply with all laws and
regulations regarding its disclosure and safe keeping.
> If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of
this e-mail, and any attachments, is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in
electronic or hard copy format.
> If you have a concern related to the receipt or disclosure of such
information, please do not hesitate to contact RIC's Privacy Officer at
312.238.7066 or xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx
> Thank you.
>
>
>
>
This e-mail, and any attachments, is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information, including but not limited to protected health information.
If the information contains legally privileged or confidential information, you have an obligation to comply with all laws and regulations regarding its disclosure and safe keeping.
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.
If you have a concern related to the receipt or disclosure of such information, please do not hesitate to contact RIC's Privacy Officer at 312.238.7066 or xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx
Thank you.
