Advances in BCI: A Neural Bypass Technology to Reconnect the Brain to the Body

Part of the SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering book series (BRIEFSELECTRIC)


Millions of people worldwide suffer from diseases that lead to paralysis through disruption of signal pathways between the brain and the muscles. It has previously been shown that intracortically-recorded signals can be decoded to extract information related to movement, allowing non-human primates and paralyzed humans to control computers, wheelchairs and robotic arms through imagined movements. In non-human primates, these types of signals have also been used to drive activation of chemically paralyzed arm muscles. In an entirely novel application of brain computer interface (BCI) technology, we show that intracortically-recorded signals can be linked in real-time to muscle activation to restore functional wrist and finger movement in a paralyzed human. Our technology is designed to restore lost function and could be used to form an electronic ‘neural bypass’ to circumvent disconnected pathways in the nervous system.


  1. 1.
    Aflalo T et al. (2015) Neurophysiology. Decoding motor imagery from the posterior parietal cortex of a tetraplegic human. Science 348(6237):906–910Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bansal AK et al. (2012) Decoding 3D reach and grasp from hybrid signals in motor and premotor cortices: spikes, multiunit activity, and local field potentials. J Neurophysiol 107(5):1337–1355Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chapin JK (1999) et al. Real-time control of a robot arm using simultaneously recorded neurons in the motor cortex. Nat Neurosci 2(7):664–670Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hochberg LR et al. (2012) Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature 485(7398):372-U121Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hochberg LR et al. (2006) Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature 442(7099):164–171Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kennedy PR, Bakay RAE (1998) Restoration of neural output from a paralyzed patient by a direct brain connection. Neuroreport 9(8):1707–1711Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Santhanam G et al. (2006) A high-performance brain-computer interface. Nature 442(7099):195–198Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Serruya MD et al. (2002) Instant neural control of a movement signal. Nature 416(6877):141–142Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taylor DM, Tillery SI, Schwartz AB, (2002) Direct cortical control of 3D neuroprosthetic devices. Science 296(5574):1829–1832Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Velliste M et al. (2008) Cortical control of a prosthetic arm for self-feeding. Nature 453(7198):1098–1101Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wessberg J et al. (2000) Real-time prediction of hand trajectory by ensembles of cortical neurons in primates. Nature 408(6810):361–365Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ethier C et al. (2012) Restoration of grasp following paralysis through brain-controlled stimulation of muscles. Nature 485(7398):368–371Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moritz CT, Perlmutter SI, Fetz EE (2008) Direct control of paralysed muscles by cortical neurons. Nature 456(7222):639-U63Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bouton CE et al. (2016) Restoring cortical control of functional movement in a human with quadriplegia. Nature 533(7602):247–250Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharma G et al. (2016) Using an artificial neural bypass to restore cortical control of rhythmic movements in a human with quadriplegia. Sci Rep 6:33807Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sharma G et al. (2015) Time stability of multi-unit, single-unit and LFP neuronal signals in chronically implanted brain electrodes. Bioelectronic Medicine (in press) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scholkopf B et al. (1997) Comparing support vector machines with Gaussian kernels to radial basis function classifiers. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 45:2758–2765Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Humber C, Ito K, Bouton C (2010) Nonsmooth formulation of the support vector machine for a neural decoding problem. arXivGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kalsi-Ryan S et al. (2012) Development of the Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension (GRASSP): reviewing measurement specific to the upper limb in tetraplegia. J Neurosurg Spine 17(1 Suppl):65–76Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mulcahey MJ, Hutchinson D, Kozin S (2007) Assessment of upper limb in tetraplegia: Considerations in evaluation and outcomes research. J. Rehabil Res Dev 44(1):91–102Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sinnott KA et al. (2016) Measurement outcomes of upper limb reconstructive surgery for tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 97(6 Suppl 2):S169–81Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kalsi-Ryan S et al. (2016) Responsiveness, sensitivity, and minimally detectable difference of the graded and redefined assessment of strength, sensibility, and prehension, version 1.0. J Neurotrauma 33(3):307–314Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kahn J et al. (2013) SCI EDGE outcome measures for research, N.S. American Physical Therapy Association, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kahn J et al. (2013) Spinal Cord Injury EDGE Task Force Outcome Measures Recommendations, American Physical Therapy Association, Neurology SectionGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mille WC et al. (2013) Outcome measures. In: Eng JJ et al. (eds) Spinal cord injury rehabilitation evidence, version 4.0. Vancouver, CA, pp 28.1–28.366Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hsieh JTC et al. (2011) Outcome Measures Toolkit: Implementation Steps, S. Project. London, ON, CA, p 1–58Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Organization WH, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF2001: World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wuolle KS et al. (1994) Development of a quantitative hand grasp and release test for patients with tetraplegia using a hand neuroprosthesis. J Hand Surg 19(2):209–218Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oleson CV, Marino RJ (2014) Responsiveness and concurrent validity of the revised capabilities of upper extremity-questionnaire (CUE-Q) in patients with acute tetraplegia. Spinal Cord 52(8):625–628Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marino RJ et al. (2015) Reliability and validity of the capabilities of upper extremity test (CUE-T) in subjects with chronic spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 38(4):498–504Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spooren A et al. (2006) Measuring change in arm hand skilled performance in persons with a cervical spinal cord injury: responsiveness of the Van Lieshout Test. Spinal Cord 44(12):772–779Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Franke A et al. (2013) Arm hand skilled performance in persons with a cervical spinal cord injury—long-term follow-up. Spinal cord 51(2):161–164Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yozbatiran N, Der-Yeghiaian L, Cramer SC (2008) A standardized approach to performing the action research arm test. Neurorehabilitation Neural Repair 22(1):78–90Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Land N et al. (2004) Tetraplegia Hand Activity Questionnaire (THAQ): the development, assessment of arm–hand function-related activities in tetraplegic patients with a spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 42(5):294–301Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Coates S et al. (2011) The AuSpinal: a test of hand function for people with tetraplegia. Spinal Cord 49(2):219–229Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sollerman C, Ejeskär A (1995) Sollerman hand function test: a standardised method and its use in tetraplegic patients. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 29(2):167–176Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kalsi-Ryan S et al. (2012) The graded redefined assessment of strength sensibility and prehension: reliability and validity. J Neurotrauma 29(5):905–914Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kalsi-Ryan S et al. (2009) Assessment of the hand in tetraplegia using the Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension (GRASSP) impairment versus function. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 14(4):34–46Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Peckham PH et al. (2001) Efficacy of an implanted neuroprosthesis for restoring hand grasp in tetraplegia: a multicenter study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82(10):1380–1388Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smith B, Mulcahey M, Betz R (1996) Quantitative comparison of grasp and release abilities with and without functional neuromuscular stimulation in adolescents with tetraplegia. Spinal Cord 34(1):16–23Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kilgore KL et al. (1997) An implanted upper-extremity neuroprosthesis. follow-up of five patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am 79(4):533–541Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kilgore KL et al. (2008) An implanted upper-extremity neuroprosthesis using myoelectric control. J Hand Surg 33(4):539–550Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mulcahey M et al. (1999) A prospective evaluation of upper extremity tendon transfers in children with cervical spinal cord injury. J Pediatr Orthop 19(3):319–328Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mulcahey M, Smith B, Betz R (2003) Psychometric rigor of the Grasp and Release Test for measuring functional limitation of persons with tetraplegia: a preliminary analysis. J Spinal Cord Med 27(1):41–46Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wodlinger B et al. (2015) Ten-dimensional anthropomorphic arm control in a human brain-machine interface: difficulties, solutions, and limitations. J Neural Eng 12(1):016011Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Collinger JL et al. (2013) High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet 381(9866):557–564Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mathiowetz V et al. (1985) Adult norms for the box and block Test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther 39(6):386–391Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Battelle Memorial InstituteColumbusUSA
  2. 2.The Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations