• Shane XieEmail author
  • Wei Meng
  • Ye Ma


For many centuries, people have speculated that humans could control devices and transfer ideas directly by means of biological signals and without any physical movements. If this could become a reality, it would help the disabled to physically engage with the world. Science fiction has long speculated the use of bio-signals to communicate information between humans and machines. Recent developments in biomechatronics could open a window that allows the brain to directly communicate with the outside world. These developments can potentially bring independence and an improved quality of life to millions of individuals who have mobility impairments.


  1. 1.
    Population Reference Bureau, 2012 World Population Data Sheet, 2012, Population Reference Bureau: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katz, J., et al., A Better Life: What older people with high support needs value, 2011, Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York, UK.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The health success site. Your Health Online_What is Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)? 2013 [cited 2013 May]; Available from:
  4. 4.
    Ficke, R.C., Digest of Data on Persons with Disabilities, 1992, Science Management Corp., Washington, DC. p. 207.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    NABMRR (National Advisory Board on Medical Rehabilitation Research), Report and Research Plan for the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, 1993, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Health. p. 63.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mental Disorders and Illicit Drug Expert Group, New Estimates of Global Burden of Disease Due in 2010. Psychiatric Services, 2008. 59(12): p. 1484–1486.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carter, G.T., Rehabilitation management in neuromuscular disease. Journal of Neurologic Rehabilitation, 1997. 11(2): p. 69–80.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fleischer, C. and G. Hommel, A human–exoskeleton interface utilizing electromyography. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2008. 24(4): p. 872–882.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dollar, A.M. and H. Herr, Lower extremity exoskeletons and active orthoses: Challenges and state-of-the-Art. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2008. 24(1): p. 144–158.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kübler, A., et al., Brain-computer communication: Unlocking the locked in. Psychological Bulletin, 2001. 127(3): p. 358–375.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haynes, J.-D. and G. Rees, Decoding mental states from brain activity in humans. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2006. 7(7): p. 523–534.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McDaid, A.J., S. Xing, and S.Q. Xie. Brain controlled robotic exoskeleton for neurorehabilitation. in IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, July 9 – 12, 2013. Wollongong, Australia.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Velliste, M., et al., Cortical control of a prosthetic arm for self-feeding. Nature, 2008. 453(7198): p. 1098–1101.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Santhanam, G., et al., A high-performance brain-computer interface. Nature, 2006. 442(7099): p. 195–198.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chao, Z.C., Y. Nagasaka, and N. Fujii, Long-term asynchronous decoding of arm motion using electrocorticographic signals in monkey. Frontiers in Neuroengineering, 2010. 3.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marquez-Chin, C., et al., Control of a neuroprosthesis for grasping using off-line classification of electrocorticographic signals: Case study. Spinal Cord, 2009. 47(11): p. 802–808.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Woman With Quadriplegia Feeds Herself Chocolate Using Mind-Controlled Robot Arm in Pitt/UPMC Study. 2012 [cited 2013 June 20]; Available from:
  18. 18.
    Lloyd, D. and T. Buchanan, A model of load sharing between muscles and soft tissues at the human knee during static tasks. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 1996. 118(3): p. 367.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leuthardt, E.C., et al., A brain-computer interface using electrocorticographic signals in humans. Journal of Neural Engineering, 2004. 1(2): p. 63–71.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Margalit, E., et al., Visual and electrical evoked response recorded from subdural electrodes implanted above the visual cortex in normal dogs under two methods of anesthesia. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 2003. 123(2): p. 129–137.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kennedy, P.R., et al., Direct control of a computer from the human central nervous system. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 2000. 8(2): p. 198–202.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shain, W., et al., Controlling cellular reactive responses around neural prosthetic devices using peripheral and local intervention strategies. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 2003. 11(2): p. 186–188.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cecotti, H., Spelling with non-invasive Brain–Computer Interfaces – Current and future trends. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 2011. 105(1–3): p. 106–114.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pilcher, W.H., et al., Intraoperative electrocorticography during tumor Resection - Impact on seizure outcome in patients with gangliogliomas. Journal of Neurosurgery, 1993. 78(6): p. 891–902.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pfurtscheller, G., B. Graimann, and C. Neuper, EEG-based Brain-Computer Interface System. Wiley Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering. 2006: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shao, Q., et al., An EMG-driven model to estimate muscle forces and joint moments in stroke patients. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 2009. 39(12): p. 1083–1088.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    deCharms, R.C., Applications of real-time fMRI. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2008. 9(9): p. 720–729.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mellinger, J., et al., An MEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI). NeuroImage, 2007. 36(3): p. 581–593.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zoons, E., et al., Structural, functional and molecular imaging of the brain in primary focal dystonia--A review. NeuroImage, 2011. 56(3): p. 1011–1020.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wallois, F., et al., EEG-NIRS in epilepsy in children and neonates. Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology, 2010. 40(5–6): p. 281–292.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wolpaw, J. and E.W. Wolpaw, Brain-Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice. 1 ed. 2012: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wolpaw, J.R., et al., Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clinical Neurophysiology, 2002. 113(6): p. 767–791.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jasper, H.H., The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1958. 10(2): p. 371–375.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Binnie, C.D., et al., Practical considerations in the positioning of EEG electrodes. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1982. 53(4): p. 453–458.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rémond, A. and F. Torres, A method of electrode placement with a view to topographical research: I. Basic concepts. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1964. 17(5): p. 577–578.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Homan, R.W., J. Herman, and P. Purdy, Cerebral Location of International 10–20 System Electrode Placement. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1987. 66(4): p. 376-382.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lo, H.S. and S.Q. Xie, Exoskeleton robots for upper-limb rehabilitation: State of the art and future prospects. Medical Engineering & Physics, 2012. 34(3): p. 261–268.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Buchanan, T.S., et al., Neuromusculoskeletal modeling: Estimation of muscle forces and joint moments and movements from measurements of neural command. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 2004. 20(4): p. 367–395.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Piazza, S.J. and S.L. Delp, The influence of muscles on knee flexion during the swing phase of gait. Journal of Biomechanics, 1996. 29(6): p. 723–733.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schutte, L.M., et al., Improving the efficacy of electrical stimulation-induced leg cycle ergometry: An analysis based on a dynamic musculoskeletal model. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 1993. 1(2): p. 109–125.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Murai, A., et al., Musculoskeletal-see-through mirror: Computational modeling and algorithm for whole-body muscle activity visualization in real time. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2010. 103(2–3): p. 310–317.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Koo, T.K. and A.F. Mak, Feasibility of using EMG driven neuromusculoskeletal model for prediction of dynamic movement of the elbow. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 2005. 15(1): p. 12–26.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
  44. 44.
    Rajaratnam, B.S., J.C.H. Goh, and V.P. Kumar, A Comparison of EMG signals from surface and fine-wire electrodes during shoulder abduction. International Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 2014.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rainoldi, A., G. Melchiorri, and I. Caruso, A method for positioning electrodes during surface EMG recordings in lower limb muscles. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 2004. 134(1): p. 37–43.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zheng T., W. Chan Kit, and Y. Hu, A human computer interface drived rehabilitation system for upper limb motion recovery. in IEEE International Conference on Virtual Environments Human-Computer Interfaces and Measurement Systems, July 2 – 4, 2012. p. 26–29.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Watanabe T., et al., Recognition of lower limb movements by artificial neural network for restoring gait of hemiplegic patients by functional electrical stimulation. in Proceedings or the 23rd International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, October 25–28, 2002. p. 1348–1351.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    He H., et al., Continuous locomotion-mode identification for prosthetic legs based on neuromuscular-mechanical fusion. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 2011. 58(10): p. 2867–2875.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Feng C. J., A.F. Mak, and T.K. Koo, A surface EMG driven musculoskeletal model of the elbow flexion-extension movement in normal subjects and in subjects with spasticity. Journal of Musculoskeletal Research, 1999. 3(2): p. 109–123.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pau J.W.L, S.Q. Xie, and A.J. Pullan, Neuromuscular interfacing: Establishing an EMG-driven model for the human elbow joint. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 2012. 59(9): p. 2586–2593.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Abdel-Malek K., et al., Optimization-based trajectory planning of the human upper body. Robotica, 2006. 24(6): p. 683–696.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hill A.V., The Heat of Shortening and the Dynamic Constants of Muscle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 1938. 126(843): p. 136–195.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hsu W.-H., et al., Differences in torsional joint stiffness of the knee between genders: A human cadaveric study. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2006. 34(5): p. 765–770.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Moromugi S., et al., A sensor to measure hardness of human tissue. in IEEE Sensors, October 22 – 25, 2006. Daegu, Korea. p. 388-391.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Buchanan T.S., et al., Estimation of muscle forces about the wrist joint during isometric tasks using an EMG coefficient method. Journal of Biomechanics, 1993. 26(4–5): p. 547–560.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Buchanan T., S. Delp, and J. Solbeck, Muscular resistance to varus and valgus loads at the elbow. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 1998. 120(5): p. 634.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Oliver N.M., B. Rosario, and A. P. Pentland, A Bayesian computer vision system for modeling human interactions. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2000. 22(8): p. 831–843.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Soechting J., and M. Flanders, Evaluating an integrated musculoskeletal model of the human arm. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 1997. 119(1): p. 93.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Laursen B., et al., A model predicting individual shoulder muscle forces based on relationship between electromyographic and 3D external forces in static position. Journal of Biomechanics, 1998. 31(8): p. 731.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lloyd D., and T. Buchanan, A model of load sharing between muscles and soft tissues at the human knee during static tasks. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 1996, 118(3): p. 367.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ferris D.P., et al., An improved powered ankle–foot orthosis using proportional myoelectric control. Gait & Posture, 2006. 23(4): p. 425–428.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Granata K.P., and W. Marras, An EMG-assisted model of trunk loading during free-dynamic lifting. Journal of Biomechanics, 1995. 28(11): p. 1309–1317.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    M. A. Nussbaum, and D. B. Chaffin, Lumbar muscle force estimation using a subject-invariant 5-parameter EMG-based model. Journal of Biomechanics, 1998. 31(7): p. 667–672.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Buchanan T.S., et al., Estimation of muscle forces and joint moments using a forward-inverse dynamics model. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2005. 37(11): p. 1911.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Knaepen, K., et al., Human-robot interaction: Kinematics and muscle activity inside a powered compliant knee exoskeleton. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 2014.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cavallaro F., Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for assessing thermal-energy storage in concentrated solar power (CSP) systems. Applied Energy, 2010. 87(2): p. 496–503.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringUniversity of LeedsLeedsUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.School of Information EngineeringWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanChina
  4. 4.Ningbo UniversityNingboChina

Personalised recommendations