CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
BrainGate is a brain implant system developed by the bio-tech company Cyberkinetics in 2003 in
conjunction with the Department of Neuroscience at Brown University. The device was designed
to help those who have lost control of their limbs, or other bodily functions, such as patients with
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or spinal cord injury. The computer chip, which is implanted
into the brain, monitors brain activity in the patient and converts the intention of the user into
computer commands. Cyberkinetics describes that "such applications may include novel
communications interfaces for motor impaired patients, as well as the monitoring and treatment
of certain diseases which manifest themselves in patterns of brain activity, such as epilepsy and
depression." Currently the chip uses 100 hair-thin electrodes that sense the electro-magnetic
signature of neurons firing in specific areas of the brain, for example, the area that controls arm
movement. The activities are translated into electrically charged signals and are then sent and
decoded using a program, which can move either a robotic arm or a computer cursor. According
to the Cyberkinetics' website, three patients have been implanted with the BrainGate system. The
company has confirmed that one patient (Matt Nagle) has a spinal cord injury, while another has
advanced

ALS.

The remarkable breakthrough offers hope that people who are paralyzed will one day be able to
independently operate artificial limbs, computers or wheelchairs. The implant, called BrainGate,
allowed Matthew Nagle, a 25-year-old Massachusetts man who has been paralyzed from the
neck down since 2001, to control a cursor on a screen and to open and close the hand on a
prosthetic limb just by thinking about the relevant actions. The movements were his first since he
was stabbed five years ago. The attack severed his spinal cord. "The results hold out the promise
to one day be able to activate limb muscles with these brain signals, effectively restoring brain to
muscle control via a physical nervous system," said John Donoghue, director of the brain science
program at Brown University, Rhode Island, and chief scientific officer of Cyberkinetics, the
company behind the brain implant. Professor Donoghue's work is published today in Nature. He
describes how, after a few minutes spent calibrating the implant, Mr. Nagle could read emails
and play the computer game Pong. He was able to draw circular shapes using a paint program

and could also change channel and turn up the volume on a television, even while talking to
people around him. After several months, he could also operate simple robotic devices such as a
prosthetic

hand,

which

he

used

to

grasp

and

move

objects.

In addition to real-time analysis of neuron patterns to relay movement, the Braingate

array is also capable of recording electrical data for later analysis. A potential use of this feature
would be for a neurologist to study seizure patterns in a patient with epilepsy. The 'BrainGate'
device can provide paralyzed or motor-impaired patients a mode of communication through the
translation of thought into direct computer control. The technology driving this breakthrough in
the Brain-Machine-Interface field has a myriad of potential applications, including the
development

of

human

augmentation

for

military

and

commercial

purposes.

The Braingate Neural Interface device consists of a tiny chip containing 100 microscopic
electrodes that is surgically implanted in the brain's motor cortex. The whole apparatus is the size
of a baby aspirin. The chip can read signals from the motor cortex, send that information to a
computer via connected wires, and translate it to control the movement of a computer cursor or a
robotic arm. According to Dr. John Donaghue of Cyberkinetics, there is practically no training
required to use BrainGate because the signals read by a chip implanted, for example, in the area
of the motor cortex for arm movement, are the same signals that would be sent to the real arm. A
user with an implanted chip can immediately begin to move a cursor with thought alone.
However, because movement carries a variety of information such as velocity, direction, and
acceleration, there are many neurons involved in controlling that movement. BrainGate is only
reading signals from an extremely small sample of those cells and, therefore, only receiving a
fraction of the instructions. Without all of the information, the initial control of a robotic hand
may not be as smooth as the natural movement of a real hand. But with practice, the user can
refine those movements using signals from only that sample of cells.
Almost 16 years ago, a woman suff ered a brainstem stroke that left her quadriplegic and unable
to speak but cognitively intacta condition called locked-in syndrome. Researchers know her as
S3: the number she was assigned as a participant in a clinical trial of a neural interface system
called BrainGate. Neural interface systems allow people who are paralyzed by disease or injury
to control external devices just by thinking about moving their paralyzed limbs. Last year, S3

made news when she operated a robotic arm to serve herself a sip of coff ee, a task she
accomplished using only her thoughts. Behind this groundbreaking achievement was a
multidisciplinary team of scientists based at Brown University, Massachusetts General Hospital,
Stanford University, and Providence VA Medical Center. Here, four BrainGate researchers
discuss their contributions to this exciting project that, in the words of neuroengineer David
Borton, makes the thinkable possible.
CHAPTER 2
HISTORY
With origins in academia and a diversified set of financial backers through the years,
BrainGate has evolved from a concept to an ongoing clinical trial that is already demonstrated
tremendous progress, with the ultimate goal of improving the lives of those who were previously
thought to have limited ability to connect with the outside world.
One of the key early innovations for BrainGate came from Dr. Donald Humphrey of Emory
University. In the late 90s, Dr. Humphrey invented a method for brain-computer interfaces,
which became the basis for a rich and diverse patent. Shortly thereafter, a Brown University
spin-off called Cyberkinetics was formed to turn a collection of laboratory tests into a
regulatory approved set of clinical trials for the first-generation neural interface system: the
result was the BrainGate Neural Interface System. Based on intellectual property from Emory,
Brown, The University of Utah, Columbia, and MITas well as Cyberkinetics own patent
portfolioCyberkinetics created a brain-implantable sensor on a Bionic computer chip smaller
than the size of a penny to monitor brain activity in patients and convert the intention of the user
into commands.
In 2004, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Cyberkinetics the first of two
Investigational Device Exemptions (IDEs) to perform this research. Hospitals in Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, and Illinois were established as clinical sites for the pilot trial and four
participants with tetraplegia (decreased ability to use the arms and legs) were enrolled in the
study. The end result was much more than a proof of concept. The knowledge from the trials
further helped to develop the BrainGate device and gave a light of hope to severely impaired

individuals seeking to reconnect with their family and friends. These trials set off a barrage
of pressand consumer interest. The shear notion of controlling objects through thought was now
a reality and the world took notice.
In the summer of 2009, BrainGate, Co. acquired the rights and assets for the
BrainGate technology and intellectual property from Cyberkinetics. This includes
numerous trademarks, trade secrets, technology, and over 30 pending and issued patents related
to neural interfaces. BrainGates primary purpose is to advance the intellectual property and
technology, while moving toward the long-term goal of creating a brain implant that allows
people to use their thoughts to control electrical devices.
The collective goal of BrainGate is that these technologies will become a powerful means to
restore communication, mobility, and independence to people in need. With the global
community interwoven through advances in technology and the Internet, BrainGate now has
an infrastructure in place to begin to create a more meaningful way of life for people in need.

2.1ADMINISTRTIVE HISTORY 0F BRAIN GATES

Over the past few years, there has been substantial scientific and medical progress toward
designing powerful restorative neural interfaces for people with paralysis or limb loss. Much of
this progress has resulted from decades of fundamental research, funded almost entirely by
federal sources, including the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
and the Department of Defense, with critical help from philanthropic foundations.
In the late 1990s, the initial translation of fundamental neuroengineering research from bench to
bedside that is, to pilot clinical testing would require a level of financial commitment ($10s
of millions) available only from private sources. In 2002, a Brown University spin-off/startup
medical device company, Cyberkinetics, Inc. (later, Cyberkinetics Neurotechnology Systems,
Inc.) was formed to collect the regulatory permissions and financial resources required to launch
pilot clinical trials of a first-generation neural interface system. The companys efforts and
substantial initial capital investment led to the translation of the preclinical research at Brown
University to an initial human device, the BrainGate Neural Interface System [Caution:

Investigational Device. Limited by Federal Law to Investigational Use]. The BrainGate system
uses a brain-implantable sensor to detect neural signals that are then decoded to provide control
signals for assistive technologies. In 2004, Cyberkinetics received from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) the first of two Investigational Device Exemptions (IDEs) to perform this
research. Hospitals in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Illinois were established as clinical sites
for the pilot clinical trial run by Cyberkinetics. Four trial participants with tetraplegia (decreased
ability to use the arms and legs) were enrolled in the study and further helped to develop the
BrainGate device. Initial results from these trials have been published or presented.
While scientific progress towards the creation of this promising technology has been steady and
encouraging, Cyberkinetics financial sponsorship of the BrainGate research - without which the
research could not have been started - began to wane. In 2007, in response to business pressures
and changes in the capital markets, Cyberkinetics turned its focus to other medical devices.
Although Cyberkinetics own funds became unavailable for BrainGate research, the research
continued through grants and subcontracts from federal sources. By early 2008 it became clear
that Cyberkinetics would eventually need to withdraw completely from directing the pilot
clinical trials of the BrainGate device. Also in 2008, Cyberkinetics spun off its device
manufacturing to new ownership, Blackrock Microsystems, Inc., which now produces and is
further developing research products as well as clinically-validated (510(k)-cleared) implantable
neural recording devices.
Beginning in mid 2008, with the agreement of Cyberkinetics, a new, fully academically-based
IDE application (for the BrainGate2 Neural Interface System) was developed to continue this
important research. In May 2009, the FDA provided a new IDE for the BrainGate2 pilot clinical
trial. The BrainGate2 pilot clinical trial is directed by faculty in the Department of Neurology at
Massachusetts General Hospital, a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School; the research is
performed in close scientific collaboration with Brown Universitys Department of
Neuroscience, School of Engineering, and Brown Institute for Brain Sciences, and the
Rehabilitation Research and Development Service of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs at
the Providence VA Medical Center. Additionally, in 2011 and 2013, Stanford University and
Case Western Reserve University, respectively, joined the BrainGate Research Team as clinical
sites. As was true of the decades of fundamental, preclinical research that provided the basis for

the recent clinical studies, funding for BrainGate research is now entirely from federal and
philanthropic sources.
The BrainGate Research Team at Brown University, Massachusetts General Hospital, Stanford
University, and Providence VA Medical Center comprises clinicians, scientists, and engineers
working together to advance understanding of human brain function and to develop
neurotechnologies for people with neurologic disease, injury, or limb loss. We hope that these
technologies will become a powerful means to restore communication, mobility, and
independence to people with paralysis. The teams investigator-initiated research is focused
advancing the science and medicine of restorative neural interfaces.

RESEARCH AREAS

Assistive Co

CHAPTER
DEVELOPMENT
3.1 How Does the Brain Develop?

In the womb, a babys brain develops from neurons moving outward from early
precursor cells.1 After the neurons move, they grow extensive dendrites (the input part of a
neuron) and axons (the neurons outputs). These early stages are driven by genetic instruction.
At birth, a baby has many, many more neurons than it will use as an adult (100 billion!); the baby
also has more synapses2A babys experiences with its parents and its social and physical
environment help prune and selectively sculpt those connections that are being used,

resulting in the eventualcell death of up to 50% of cortical neurons. The connections that are
used become strengthened and more efficient.
Many studies have shown that providing an enriched physical or social environment at this time
can subsequently improve learning and memory, encourage exploration, and decrease fearful
responses to novelty. It can also reduce the impact ofgenetic or environmental risk factors. Cells
in the braincalled gray matterdevelop throughout childhood and adolescence and then
decrease in number. The axonal connectionscalled white matterdevelop into adulthood.

3.2 Why are Childrens Brains So Sensitive to Environmental Factors?

Childrens brains are
more vulnerable
to environmental
factors than those of
adults. Why?
In the prenatal period,
the brain is much more
sensitive to environmental influences than later in life because all of theneurons originate from a
small layer of cells. Any impact to these cells can have cascading impacts as the baby develops.
Further, the baby does not have the full protection of the bloodbrain barrier until its sixth month
of prenatal life. This barrier helps to keep out large molecules, like toxins or heavy metals, that
may damage the brain. Before that time, the brain is exposed.
After birth, the brain is still more vulnerable than that of an adult, because babies cant detoxify
any harmful fatty substance that can be passed on through breast milk.1
3.3 How Does the Social Brain Develop?
Different parts of the brain often develop at different times during development. Like detectives,
scientists can use this fact to decipher when developmental problems occur. Areas involved in
breathing or the simple processing of sensory information from our eyes, ears, and skin, for

example, develop before the more complex cortical association areas involved in language or
social processing.

Parts of the social brain, includinglimbic system nuclei like theamygdala, develop at different
rates. These regions need social stimulation in the first few years of life to develop normally.1

Social behavior, such as attachment and language, develops within critical periods of
development. Critical periods are times in development when the brain is particularly sensitive to
social or physical environmental influences. 2 The critical period for learning how to

discriminate phonemes in language and process facial emotions is less than 3 years. (A phoneme
is the smallest distinct unit of language, such as the m of mat and the b of bat in
English.) At the beginning of life, babies can hear phonemes from all languages; by year 1, they
can only hear phonemes from their own language. By 6-12 months, babies prefer social stimuli
(faces, voices, and people) to objects. If the child doesnt gain experience during this time, or
enjoy interacting verbally or nonverbally with others, that can affect his or her social skills
later.2 Basic social skills are acquired early in life that provide the building blocks for more
complex social abilities later.3

3.4 How are Neurons Different with ASD?

Most evidence suggests that autism
results from altered connections
between neurons called synapses.
Major current synaptic theories of
autism include the following:
1. Activity-dependent synaptic
plasticity. Because children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) suffer from deficits in
learning how to engage socially with others as well as language issues, one idea is that autism
reflects problems with activity-dependent synaptic changes.1 As discussed in the How
Experience Changes the Brain section, the experience gained from learning leads to activitydependent change at the synapse. Activity-dependent means that the change requires the neuron
to be active, sending nerve impulses to its connecting neurons. Scientists have genetic evidence
for this theory.
2. Synaptic Pruning. The enlarged brain seen in young children with ASD suggests a lack of
synaptic pruning, or shaping, of connections. In other words, the neurons receive more inputs
than typical. A lack of pruning affects a synapses efficiency in reacting to a given stimulus,
which can affect neurons in a variety of ways, including how efficient and focused we are when
paying attention to a particular task or person.
3. Balance of Excitatory and Inhibitory Synapses2. One way the brain helps us focus on a task
is with inhibitory neurons, which contain the neurotransmitter GABA (short for gamma-amino

butyric acid). Inhibition can sharpen an excitatory neurons response to an input. If an excitatory
neurons activity is not controlled, it can actually die, through a process calledexcitotoxicity.
Scientists can observe levels of activity in the brain with electroencephalograms (EEGs), through
the technique of placing electrodes on the scalp. Up to 65% of patients with ASD show abnormal
EEG activity. This suggests that the ratio of excitation to inhibition in children with autism may
differ from that in neurotypical children. Like other theories, genetic evidence supports this
idea.2
Changes in levels of excitation and inhibition may affect brain waves, or brain oscillations.
Although scientists have long used the electrical activity that can be captured with electrodes on
the scalp to study sensory processing and attention, they didnt fully understand what this activity
meant. Now we know that these waves, or brain oscillations, reflect the summed-up, or
synchronous, activity of particular neural circuits. In a way, these oscillations provide a link
between a single neurons activity and the behavior that we observe. Deficits in auditory and
visual brain waves, or evoked potentials, in people with ASD suggest problems in information
processing. Deficits in a particularly famous brain wave called the P300 (because it is seen 300
milliseconds after a stimulus occurs) suggest problems in selective attention.3 Children with
autism also show abnormalities in a particular type of wave seen in EEGs called a gamma wave,
and the difference is correlated, or linked, with IQ.4
3.5 How is the Brains Social Pathway Different with ASD?
Whereas neuronal
theories are designed to
explain autism at the
cellular level, brain
circuitry theories aim to
describe autism at the
behavioral level. One
well-supported brain
circuitry theory is that ofreduced frontal lobe connectivity.
An early study showed reduced connectivity between the frontal lobes (also known as the frontal
cortex, which includes the prefrontal cortex) and parts of the limbic system.1 The frontal lobes
play important roles in language, social behavior, complex thinking, and emotion. This part of

the cortex, like other corticalareas, is made up of small vertical columns in which the main
neurons, called pyramidal cells (because they have cell bodies shaped like pyramids!), talk to
one another as well as to local neurons called interneurons. These minicolumns provide the
functional building blocks of information processing in the cortex.
In people with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), the minicolumns are less connected to other
parts of the brain. They are much bigger, suggesting increased talk within the columns.
Additionally, the pyramidal cells from each column are also less connected to other parts of the
brain.
Recent magnetic resonance imaging studies of people with ASD, coupled with anatomical
observations of postmortem brains, confirm that the frontal lobe has fewer connections to and
from other parts of the brain.2 People with ASD show correspondingly less activity in the frontal
lobe in response to various stimuli and tasks, including language, attention, and memory.

3.6 How are Brain Chemicals Affected by ASD?

Changes are observed in
the
neurochemicals in
the brain as well
both hormones and
neurotransmitters.
Hormones,
including neuropeptides,
can modulate or change
the level of activity of a
neuron as well as affect neuronal pathways. Some forms of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) are
correlated with low levels of the neuropeptide oxytocin in the blood.1 Others have been shown to have
problems with a key receptor forvasopressin. Both hormones play an important role in social recognition,
social contact, and social bonding in humans and other mammals.
Neurotransmitters are the chemical signals by which neurons communicate with each other. Changes in
levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin are found in people with ASD.2Serotonin regulates the
neuropeptides oxytocin and vasopressin, described above. But serotonin does much more than that. It also
plays roles in the growth and differentiation (or specialization) of neurons; the myelination of a neurons
axons, or outputs (which increases the speed of a neurons signal); and, the formation of synapses. If a
person has less serotonin, that could affect all of these processes.

CHAPTER4
TYPES OF BCI

INTRODUCTION of electroencephalography( EEG)

In 1924 Berger recorded an EEG signals from a human brain for the first time. By analyzing
EEG signals Berger was able to identify oscillatory activity in the brain, such as the alpha wave
(812 Hz), also known as Berger's wave. The first recording device used by Berger was very
elementary, which was in the early stages of development, and
Braincomputer interface (BCIs) started with Hans Berger's inventing of electrical activity of
the human brain and the development was required to insert silver wires under the scalp of the
patients. In later stages, those were replaced by silver foils that were attached to the patients head
by rubber bandages later on Berger connected these sensors to a Lippmann capillary
electrometer, with disappointing results. More sophisticated measuring devices such as the
Siemens double-coil recording galvanometer, which displayed electric voltages as small as one
ten thousandth of a volt, led to success. Berger analyzed the interrelation of alternations in his
EEG wave diagrams with brain diseases. EEGs permitted completely new possibilities for the
research of human brain activities.
OVERVIEW OF BRAIN COMPUTER INTERFACE (BCI) A BrainComputer Interface (BCI),
often called a Mind-Machine Interface (MMI), or sometimes called a direct neural interface or a
BrainMachine Interface (BMI), is a direct communication channel between the brain and an
external device. Brain-computer interface (BCI) is an upcoming technology which aims to
convey people's intentions to the outside rch and development has been focused on
neuroprosthetics applications. This aims at restoring damaged hearing, sight and movement.
International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, May 2012. IJAET ISSN:
2231-1963 740 Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 739-745 Neuroprosthetics is an area of neuroscience
concerned with neural prostheses. We can use artificial devices to replace the function of nervous
system which is not proper and brain related problems as well as sensory organs. The most
widely used neuroprosthetic device is the cochlear implant which, as of 2006, had been
implanted in approximately 100,000 people worldwide. There are many other neuroprosthetic
devices which aim to restore the vision, including retinal implants. The difference between BCI
and neuroprosthetics are: neuroprosthetics connect nervous system to a device where as BCI
connects the brain to a computer system. However, neuroprosthetics and BCIs are mainly
focusing on to achieve the same goal such as restoring sight, hearing, movement, ability to

communicate, and even cognitive function. Both use similar experimental methods and surgical
techniques. BCI provides a new communication channel between the human brain and the
computer. Mental activity leads to changes of electrophysiological signals like the EEG. The BCI
system detects such changes and transforms it into a control signal which can be used in various
applications like video game, motion of a wheel chair etc. One of the main goal is to enable
completely paralyzed patient to communicate with their environment. The machine should be
able to learn to discriminate between different patterns of brain activity as accurate as possible
and the user of the BCI should learn to perform different mental tasks in order to produce distinct
brain signals [2], [8], [9]. A BCI is a communication and control system that does not depend in
any way on the brains normal neuromuscular output channels. The users intent is conveyed by
brain signals (such as EEG) rather than by peripheral nerves and muscles, and these brain signals
do not depend for their generation on neuromuscular activity. Furthermore, as a communication
and control system, a BCI establishes a real-time interaction between the user and the outside
world. The user receives feedback reflecting the outcome of the BCIs operation, and that
feedback can affect the users subsequent intent and its expression in brain signals as shown in
figure1[1]. The first step in developing an effective BCI paradigm is to determine suitable
control signals from the EEG. A suitable control signal has the following attributes: (i) it can be
precisely characterized for every individual, (ii) it can be readily modulated or translated to
express the intention, and (iii) it can be detected and tracked consistently and reliably [3]. The
EEG eye blink signals have all the above three attributes and hence can be used as a control
signal. Fig 1: Representation of a BCI III. TYPES OF BRAIN COMPUTER INTERFACE There
are several types of brain-computer interfaces that are reported. The basic purpose of these
devices or types is to intercept the electrical signals that pass between neurons in the brain and
translate them to a signal that is sensed by external devices. 3.1 Invasive Brain Computer
Interfaces Invasive Brain Computer Interface devices are those implanted directly into the brain
and have the highest quality signals. These devices are used to provide functionality to paralyzed
people. Invasive International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, May 2012.
IJAET ISSN: 2231-1963 741 Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp.
739-745 BCIs are also used to restore vision by connecting the brain with external
cameras and to restore the use of limbs by using brain controlled robotic arms and
legs. As they rest in the grey matter, invasive devices produce the highest quality

signals of BCI devices but are prone to scar-tissue build-up, causing the signal to
become weaker or even lost as the body reacts to a foreign object in the brain. Fig 2:
Jens Neumann, a man with acquired blindness, being interviewed about his vision
BCI on CBS's The Early Show In vision science, direct brain implants have been used
to treat non-congenital i.e. acquired blindness.
One of the first scientists to come up with working brain interface to restore sight as
private researcher, William Dobell. He implanted first prototype into Jerry, A man
blinded in adulthood, in 1978. He inserted single array BCI containing 68 electrodes
into Jerrys visual cortex and succeeded in producing the sensation of seeing light. In
2002, experiment was conducted on Jens Neumann where Dobell used more
sophisticated implant enabling better mapping of phosphenes into coherent vision and
after the experiment Neumann was interviewed on CBSs show as shown in fig
2.BCIs focusing on motor Neuroprosthetics aim to either restore movement in
paralyzed individuals or provide devices to assist them, such as interfaces with
computers or robot arms.
Researchers at Emory University in Atlanta led by Philip Kennedy and Roy Bakay
were first to install a brain implant in a human that produced signals of high enough
quality to stimulate movement. 3.2 Partially Invasive Brain Computer Interfaces
Partially invasive BCI devices are implanted inside the skull but rest outside the brain
rather than within the grey matter. Signal strength using this type of BCI is bit weaker
when it compares to Invasive BCI. They produce better resolution signals than noninvasive BCIs. Partially invasive BCIs have less risk of scar tissue formation when
compared to Invasive BCI. Electrocorticography (ECoG) uses the same technology as
non-invasive electroencephalography, but the electrodes are embedded in a thin
plastic pad that is placed above the cortex, beneath the dura mater. ECoG
technologies were first trade-in humans in 2004 by Eric Leuthardt and Daniel Moran
from Washington University in St Louis. In a later trial, the researchers enabled a
teenage boy to play Space Invaders using his ECoG implant. This research indicates
that it is difficult to produce kinematics BCI devices with more than one dimension of
control using ECoG. Light Reactive Imaging BCI devices are still in the realm of
theory. These would involve implanting laser inside the skull. The laser would be
trained on a single neuron and the neurons reflectance measured by a separate sensor.

When neuron fires, the laser light pattern and wavelengths it reflects would change
slightly. This would allow researchers to monitor single neurons but require less
contact with tissue and reduce the risk of scar-tissue build up. 3.3 Non Invasive Brain
Computer Interfaces Non invasive brain computer interface has the least signal clarity
when it comes to communicating with the brain (skull distorts signal) but it is
considered to be very safest when compared to other types. This type of device has
been found to be successful in giving a patient the ability to move muscle implants
and restore partial movement. Non-Invasive technique is one in which medical
scanning devices or sensors are mounted on caps or headbands read brain signals.
This approach is less intrusive but also read signals less effectively because electrodes
cannot be placed directly on the desired part of the brain.
One of the most popular devices under this category is the EEG or International
Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, May 2012. IJAET ISSN: 22311963 742 Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 739-745 electroencephalography capable of providing a
fine temporal resolution. It is easy to use, cheap and portable. 3.4 The Emotiv
Education Edition SDK The EEG headset, to extract a persons brain waves to
authenticate him, is EPOC headset manufactured by Emotiv Inc as shown in fig 3.
More details about this headset are given below. The Education Edition SDK by
Emotiv Systems includes a research headset: a 14 channel (plus CMS/DRL
references, P3/P4 locations) high resolution, neuro-signal acquisition and processing
wireless neuroheadset as shown in fig 4. Channel names based on the International
10-20 locations are: AF3, F7, F3, FC5, T7, P7, O1, O2, P8, T8, FC6, F4, F8, and AF4.
[4] Fig 3: Subject wearing the Emotive Epoc Headset Fig 4: Illustration of location of
electrodes on the scalp The Education Edition SDK also includes a proprietary
software toolkit that exposes the APIs and detection libraries.
The SDK provides an effective development environment that integrates well with
new and existing frameworks. Other methods of capturing brain signals include
electroencephalography (EEG) and magneto encephalography (MEG). The methods
that are not in use but are being considered include magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) and near infrared spectrum imaging (NIRS) to provide analysis of brain wave
and chemical patterns, but are currently impractical due to their size [5]. i) EEG
Based BCI Electroencephalography (EEG) is a type of non-invasive interface, which

has high potential due to its fine temporal resolution, ease of use, portability and low
set-up cost.
A common method for designing BCI is to use EEG signals extracted during mental
tasks [8], [9]. EEG is the recording of electrical activity along the scalp produced by
the firing of neurons within the brain. EEG refers to the AF3 F7 F3 FC5 T7 P7 O1
CMS P8 O2 F4 FC6 AF4 F8 T8 DRL International Journal of Advances in
Engineering & Technology, May 2012. IJAET ISSN: 2231-1963 743 Vol. 3, Issue 2,
pp. 739-745 recording of the brain's spontaneous electrical activity over a short period
of time, usually 2040 minutes, as recorded from multiple electrodes placed on the
scalp. The EEG is modified by motor imagery and can be used by patients with
severe motor impairments (e.g., late stage of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) to
communicate with their environment and to assist them. Such a direct connection
between the brain and the computer is known as an EEG-based BCI. EEG-based BCI
have become a hot spot in the study of neural engineering, rehabilitation, and brain
science [6]. The most commonly used signal that is identified and captured with EEG
method is called the P300 wave.
The P300 is an event related potential, a measurable electrical charge that is directly
ht hand movements [13]. Several laboratories have managed to record signals from
monkey and rat cerebral cortices in order to operate BCIs to carry out movement.
Monkeys have navigated computer cursors on screen and commanded robotic arms to
perform simple tasks simply by thinking about the task and without any motor output.
Schmidt, Fetz and Baker in the 1970s established that monkeys could quickly learn to
voluntarily control the firing rate of individual neurons in the primary motor cortex.
In the 1980s, Apostolos Georgopoulos at Johns Hopkins University found a
mathematical relationship between the electrical responses of single motor-cortex
neurons in rhesus macaque monkeys and the direction that monkeys moved their
arms(based on a cosine function). V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK The use
of EEG signals as a vector of communication between man and machines represents
one of the current challenges in signal theory research.
The principal element of such a communication system is known as Brain
Computer Interface. BCI is the interpretation of the EEG signals related
International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, May 2012. IJAET

ISSN: 2231-1963 744 Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 739-745 to the characteristic parameters of
brain electrical activity. This is the new emerging area which is mainly for the
patients in the treatment bed (those have lost their speech due to accident or with any
reason). Over the past few years, numerous proof-of-concept experiments have shown
that people unable to move can use simple EEG-based BCI systems for point-andclick, robot control, and even spelling at rates as fast as 20 words per minute.
However it has its own drawbacks. EEG measures tiny voltage potentials where
signal is weak and prone to interference.
Signals have to be recorded from brain in a clinical condition where there are no
external (noise free environment), users have to be trained to perform various tasks
with full concentration and Handling high dimensional data. Future work in this
regard would be exploring different approaches which can increase the reliability of
scalp EEG recordings, exploring some more dimension reduction algorithms which
helps in reducing the size of the EEG features.
We can also say as detection techniques and experimental designs improve, the BCI
will improve as well and would provide wealth alternatives for individuals to interact
with their environment. REFERENCES [1] J. R. Wolpaw et al., Brain-computer
interface technology: A review of the first international meeting, IEEE Trans. Rehab.
Eng., vol. 8, pp.164173, June 2000. [2]. Brijil Chambayil, Rajesh Singla, R. Jha,
Virtual Keyboard BCI using Eye blinks in EEG IEEE 6th International Conference
on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications, pg 466470,2010 [3] Saeid Sanei and J. A. Chambers, EEG Signal Processing, First
Edition, ch. 1, p1 p18, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 2007. [4] Sebastien Marcel and
Jose del R Millan, Person Authentication using Brainwaves (EEG) and Maximum
A Posteriori Model Adaptation IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence, Special Issue on Biometrics, April 2007 ,Volume : 29, Issue:4, On
page(s): 743 [5] Yijun Wang; Xiaorong Gao; Bo Hong; Chuan Jia; Shangkai Gao;
Tsinghua Univ., Beijing, BrainComputer Interfaces Based on Visual Evoked
Potentials, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, SeptemberOctober 2008, 27 Issue:5, page(s): 64 71 [6] Lenhardt, A., Kaper, M., & Ritter, H.
(2008).

An adaptive P300-based online Brain Computer interface. IEEE Transactions on

Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 121-130. [7] Berger, T., Chapin, J.,
Gerhardt, G., McFarland, D., Principe, J., Soussou, W., et al. (2007). International
Assessment of Research and Development in Brain Computer interfaces. Baltimore:
WTEC. [8] G. Pfurtscheller et al., Current trends in Graz brain-computer interface
(BCI) research, IEEE Trans. Rehab. Eng., vol. 8, pp. 216219, June 2000. [9] W. D.
Penny, S. J. Roberts, E. A. Curran, and M. J. Stokes, EEG-based communication: A
pattern recognition approach, IEEE Trans. Rehab.Eng., vol. 8, pp. 214215, June
2000. [10] S. Laconte, S. Peltier, and X. Hu.
Real-time fMRI using brain-state classification, Human Brain Mapping, vol. 28,pp.
10331044, 2007. [11] A. Eklund, H. Ohlsson, M. Andersson, J. Rydell, A.
Ynnerman, and H. Knutsson, Using Real-Time fMRI to Control a Dynamical
System by Brain Activity Classification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Proceedings of Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention
(MICCAI),vol. 5761, pp. 1000 1008, 2009. [12] Antara Bhattacharya, Dr. N. G.
Bawane, S. M. Nirkhi, Brain Computer Interface Using EEG Signals, G.H.R.C.E,
Nagpur [13] Christoph Guger, Alois Schlgl, Christa Neuper, Dirk Walterspacher,
Thomas Strein, and Gert Pfurtscheller, Rapid Prototyping of an EEG-Based Brain
Computer Interface (BCI), IEEE Transactions on Neural systems and Rehabilitation
Engineering, vol. 9, No. 1, March 2001 [14] Hubert Cecotti and Axel Gra ser.
Convolution Neural Networks forP300 Detection with Application to BrainComputer Interfaces, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine
intelligence, vol. 33, no. 3, March 2011 International Journal of Advances in
Engineering & Technology, May 2012. IJAET ISSN: 2231-1963 745 Vol. 3, Issue 2,
pp. 739-745 AUTHORS Anupama. H. S is working as Assistant Professor in
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, R.V.College of Engineering,
Bangalore, India.
Her areas of interest are Brain Computer Interface, Virtual Reality, Cryptography and
Network Security. She has a teaching experience of 6yrs and 2 yrs of R&D
experience. Her specialization area is Brain Computer Interface. Cauvery. N. K is
working as a Professor in Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
R.V.College of Engineering, Bangalore, India. She has 13yrs of teaching experience

and 5yrs of R&D experience. Her areas of interest are Computer Networks, Compiler
Design and Genetic Algorithm. She has published several papers in various National
and International Conferences and Journals. She has delivered lectures at various
organizations. She is also guiding research scholars. G. M. LINGARAJU is working
as Professor in Department of Information Science and Technology, M S Ramaiah
Institute of Technology, Bangalore, India. He delivered lectures at various
organizations. His areas of interest are Computer Graphics, Brain Computer Interface,
and Virtual Reality. He has published several papers in various National and
International Conferences and Journals. He is also guiding the research scholars. He
has 22 yrs of teaching experience and 12 yrs of R&D experience.
CHAPTER 5
APPLICATIONS
1.In classification of EEG signal.
2,In multimedia communication.
3.In evaluation of spike detection algorithms.
4.Actuated control of mobile robot by human EEG.
5. As a brain controlled switch for asynchronous control
6.In evaluating the machine learning algorithms.

CHAPTER 6
ADVANTAGES
Principally, this technology was intended to aid those in critical conditions who have lost
fundamental functions of their bodies. An example of this was French magazine editor JeanDominique Bauby who, due to a stroke, had lost motor function but still retained full use of his
mind (Harris, 2011). If BrainGate had been available then, it would have enabled him to use this
functional mind. This is because even with a disconnected brain and nervous system,
BrainGate can create an alternate pathway that allows neural signals to be read and
transmitted (Cyberkinetics, 2013). On paper, this technology seems perfectly operable, but how
about in actual application? Human trials have been conducted and have proven the ability to
switch on lights, change TV channels, and even read emails (Gizmag Team, 2004). One trial in
specific is that of Matthew Nagle. Nagle is a quadriplegic that lost use of his body after a knife

injury while protecting his friend from an attacker (Martin, 2005). Once he discovered the
program, Nagle immediately applied and began one of the first human trials.
Nagle picked up on the process very quickly and demonstrated a promising ability to perform
tasks such as moving a cursor and even playing video games (Martin, 2005). Nagle, however,
isnt the only successful human trial. Another woman, without use of both arms and legs, was
able to pick up a bottle of coffee AND drink itthe first time in fifteen years (Orenstein, 2012)!
This is an expansion of the BrainGate program that includes robotic arms. These robots act as the
individuals arms and are controllable via thought and intent (Orenstein, 2012). The sky is the
limit for the potential of this technology!
The idea of an implantable chip also suggests the potential for use by doctors in identifying
various neurological diseases. Since the BrainGate chip is implanted directly onto the motor
cortex, any related condition can be monitored. An example of this would be for those who have
epilepsy. With this technology, there is potential for detection of oncoming seizures and even a
follow up treatment performed by the chip itself (Gizmag Team, 2004). In addition to this,
doctors would have the ability to observe and comment on any brain activity before and after
said seizures (Cyberkinetics, 2013). However, to take full advantage of this potential, the
BrainGate chip would have to be wireless and long lastingtwo desires Donoghue has
expressed (Gizmag Team, 2004).
Now what good is any piece of technology if it doesnt further enhance our connection to the
digital world? While the BrainGate chip is helpful to those handicapped, imagine the potential it
has for someone who still has full control over their body.
If willing, Surgenor (CEO) predicts the ability to control machines, write programs, and perform
intensive actions (Gizmag Team, 2004). However, this may be a long time away as the
technology is not cheap. Still, the ability to control a computer with mere thought or even make a
phone call seems pretty attractive (Cyberkinetics, 2013). Of course this technology is still being
developed, so we can only daydream about a day where our minds will be the only controller we
need.

So who are the winners of this impressive piece of technology? First would be the creators.
Cyberkinetics (Surgenor and Donoghue) is credited for the creation of this revolutionary device
and once mass retail is possible, they will profit greatly as well. Next is of course those
individuals that the chip is intended for. Having lost the ability to perform basic motor functions,
it will be a blessing for them if any of these can be returned. BrainGate allows them to regain
part of their lives that have been lost. Finally, the government will ultimately benefit from this
technology, as they will be able to implement it in the military and take full advantage of its
potential.

CHAPTER 7
3. DISADVANTAGES
All technology has the potential to be abused. What would happen if implantable chips became
part of the norm? Say convenience took precedence over comfort and every single individual
had a BrainGate chip implanted. What could be the consequences? Certainly there would be the
worry of trackingthe ability to tell where you are and what you are doing at any given time.
Surprisingly, this technology isnt new either. For example, in a Texas school, students are
required to wear ID cards that use RFID technology. RFID stands for Radio Frequency
Identification Device and is primarily used for tracking purposes (Kravets, 2013). This
technology was used to keep tabs on the students and assist in attendance recording. In this
school system, suspension was administered to anyone refusing to abide by these rules.
However, ID cards can be taken off or thrown away, imagine the possibilities with an implanted
chip. Its difficult to trust that these chips wouldnt be abused in this manner.
While human tracking is bad in itself, it is not the only use of BrainGate for harmful purposes.
Interestingly enough, the BrainGate project is funded partially by DARPAthe central research
organization of the DOD (Gizmag Team, 2004). What is DARPA and the DOD? Essentially they
are government organizations that handle the military and defense of the nation. DARPA stands

for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency while the DOD is the Department of
Defense.
So what interest would the government have in BrainGate? When asked they expressed interest
in Brain-Machine-Interfacea direct connection between the brain and an external device, such
as a computer (Gizmag Team, 2004). This would, for example, allow soldiers to remotely control
robots used in combat. Anthony Tether, a representative of DARPA, was among the first to
envision this potential:
Somewhere there will be a robot that will open its eyes, and we will be able to see what the
robot sees. We will be able to remotely look down on a cave and think to ourselves, Lets go
down there and kick some butt. And the robots will respond, controlled by our thoughts.
Imagine a warrior with the intellect of a human and the immortality of a machine. (Martin,
2005)
While intentions may be to keep the nation safe, one must question at what cost? In a manner
similar to that of nuclear warfare, once introduced, it is hard to keep contained. Who is to say
that other countries wont retaliate with robots of their own? Sure soldiers will be kept out of
harms way, but a new level of destruction will be expected. The idea of memory implants has
also been suggested as a potential for military application of the BrainGate technology (Gizmag
Team, 2004).
Since the chip rests on the motor cortex of the brain and translates neural signals, who is to say
that it cannot make up some of its own? Assuming this to be possible, there would be the everpresent threat of mind-control or at least the proliferation of false memories. A power like this
would come in handy if someone in power wished to keep the population under control.
However, these are all very very rational worries and places a lot of doubt in the
government/human race itselfmaking them unlikely to occur.
Taking a step away from human abuse of the BrainGate chip, its important to also be aware of
the health risks that it poses. The BrainGate is among the first BMI (Brain-Machine-Interface) to
require DIRECT implantation to the motor cortex (Martin, 2005). This, of course, comes with

many risks. One of the many challenges acknowledged by Cyberkinetics (founding company) is
the risk of infection due to percutaneous connector component (Cyberkinectics, 2013). This is
a very significant detail as the chip is placed directly into the body.
If a foreign contaminate were to be on the chip, it would be difficult for the individual to fight it
offmost likely resulting in death. Many other industries have also expressed distaste for the
necessary chip implantation. A team of Australian researchers have gathered similar results,
albeit taking longer, using an electrode-studded skullcap (Martin, 2005). No invasive methods
needed. While another team cites the use of an electrode array that sits OUTSIDE the motor
cortex to be just as effective (Martin, 2005). There is also the fear of leaving the chip inside the
human body for prolonged periods of time. While the BrainGate program claims a stable and
consistent performance for the chip even after five years (Orenstein, 2012) there have been many
reports of animals acquiring highly aggressive cancer on micro-chipped areas (Unruh, 2012).
While humans and animals can yield different trial results, its important to be aware of these
risks. No point of BMI technology if you are too sick to use it.
While BrainGates technology certainly bears a lot of benefits, it comes along with a lot of costs
as well. First off, any company that manufactures products intended for the handicapped
(wheelchairs, canes, claws, etc.) will be out of business. With robots that can be thought
controlled, such as the DEKA robot arm (Orenstein, 2012), there will be little use for these tools.
Next is any nation or soldier that may be involved in war. With this technology available, the
potential is limitless. For example, say we have a pilot remotely control a fighter jet to crash into
an enemy school. Since there was no pilot, there was no death for a soldiera fact the
government would want you to focus onbut what about the innocent bystanders in that school?
The threat of death is what restrains many nations from being too reckless in combat. A prime
example of this is the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), which prohibited the use of nuclear
missiles due to their destructive nature. Finally, implanted individuals carry a lot of risk in the
technology. ASSUMING implantation went smoothly and continued to work, they would always
have to wonder if this if they were secretly being tracked or if their inner thoughts were being
monitored. Could one simply trust that technology of this power not be abused