Brain–machine interface

Author(s): Prashant Nair

Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America , November 12, 2013, Vol. 110, No. 46 (November 12, 2013), p. 18343
Published by: National Academy of Sciences

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/23757528

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.com/stable/23757528?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Academy of Sciences is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

This content downloaded from

201.131.90.36 on Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:25:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
W CORE
CORECONCEPTS
CONCEPTS

Brain-machine interface 1

Prashant
Prashant IMair
Nair
Science Writer robotic arm as their own, robotic
Science Writer fine-tuning maneu
arm as their own, fine-tuning maneu
vers
verstoto
effect
effect
precise
precise
moves. moves.
"It was control
"It was
in control in
free
freespace.
space.The The
movements
movements
looked natural,
looked natural,
and
andthe themonkey
monkey could could
reach andreach
graspand
like grasp like
In
In aaworld
world awash
awash in technology,
in technology, theimpressive
line
the line gainsimpressive
in technology gains
have helped
inhumans
technology have helped bumans do» Schw
do," says Schwartz.
between humans and machines has begun mark toa few milestones.
between humans and machines has begun to mark a few In 2012,milestones.
Massachusetts GeneralIn 2012,'Massachus
Hospital
blur, our thoughts and actions increasingly In 2006, Brown University neuroscientist
blur, our thoughts and actions increasingly In 2006, Brown neurologist University Leighneuroscientist
Hochberg and others neurol
re ist Lei h
shaped
shaped and
andsubstantiated
substantiated by machines. John
by machines.PerDonoghue Per-and John
others reported
Donoghue the reand others reported the andre-a d
ported that a 58-year-old woman 66 tha{ a 58 ol
haps sult of a clinical trial of a surgically implanted,
hapsnowhere
nowhere is the blurring
is the more evident
blurring more evident suit of a clinical trial of man,
year-old a surgically
both paralyzedimplanted,
from the neckold man> bo(h
than in a scientific endeavor called "neural silicon-based device dubbed BrainGate,
than in a scientific endeavor called "neural silicon-based device downdubbed
for years,BramGate,
learned to usedown for years> lea
implanted
interfacing,"
interfacing," a terma term
for technology aimed which
for technology at allowed aat25-year-old
aimed tétraplégie
whlch allowed pabrain electrodestetraplegic
a 25-year-old pa- arm
to control a robotic brainto electrodes to
bridging the workings of machines and tient with spinal cord injury to move a cursor
the
bridging the workings of machines and the tlent wth sPmal cord
reach andinjury
grasp smallto objects,
moveand, a cursor
in one rgacb and
human brain. Brain-machine interfaces on a computer screen, open an e-mail mes
oper
human brain. Brain-machine interfaces oper- on a computer screen, open
case, even ancoffee
drink e-mailfrommes- casg>
a bottle using agven drink co
ate sage, operate a television, open and close a
ateatatthethe
nexus of thought
nexus and action,and
of thought usingaction, using sa8e' °Perate a television, open and
straw, suggesting close
that the a straw>
technology mightSUggesting th
prosthetic hand, and perform simple move
the
thebrain's
brain'selectrical signals signals
electrical to maneuverto maneuver Prost et'c an > an Per somedayorm help
simp
paralyzed
e move-
people carry
somedayout help paral
ments using a robotic arm—3 years after pa
external
external devices
devices such assuch as prosthetic
prosthetic limbs, limbs, ™nts using a robotic everyday activities
arm~-3 (4). The same
years after year,
pa- everyd a
ralysis. Despite the advance, the researchers
among
among other applications.
other (Noninvasive
applications. im
(Noninvasive im- ralysis' uDeSpite the Schwartz and colleagues
adva"Ce'. demonstratedSchwartz
^ researcjhers that and coll
wrote that the use of the device depended on
aging
aging techniques
techniques such as as electroencephalog- T? ** the USef °fa 46
electroencephalog
such 52-year-old
?6V1Ce tétraplégie
dep!"ded woman °" could use a
a 52-year-old tetrap
the "assistance of trained experts. The need
raphy
raphy and and functional
functional MRI are alsoMRIexamplesare also examples he assista"ce prosthetic
tralned limb to routinely^need
^perts; execute seven
^ Umb tQ rout
for this assistance must be eliminated through
of
of brain-machine
brain-machine interfaces.) Theinterfaces.)
hope is The
system automation" (2).
hope is Til thl"0Ugh dimensional
dimensional movements, including reach movements
ing and grasping, following implantation of
that
that suchsuch
devicesdevices
will somedaywillhelpsomeday
paralyzed
Twohelp paralyzed
years later, University>oftPittsburgh
Mnjver<.jn, 0r Pittsburgh mg ^ grasping' fol
neonle
people, who
who have have
lost motor lost
control, motor
to lead control to lead
neuroscientist Andrew Schwartz and others
J , ^ ,g microelectrodes
microelectrodes into her brain's motor cor into her
Lreiiendente
more independent lives. neuroscientist Andrew Schwartz tex and
and 13 others
weeks ^ and
of training (5). B wgeks o
moved the field another step forward: Ma
The
The ideaWea
of tappingoftnn
into thena nto
brain's elec the brain's eler mOV ^ SteP Ma"
Researchers Researchers
working on brain-machine working o
The idea of tappmg rnto the bram caque monkeys
s elec-withcaquelightly restrainedwith
monkeyS arms lightly restrained arms interfaces are no
interfaces are no doubt making strides, but
trical activity to control movement is more and silicon electrodes implanted in the motor
!h tTdlty d° Twith
nrrTt18 their reach has thus far exceeded
theirtheir grasp.has thus f
than two decades old, attempts m°d and SiliCOn electr0des ™planted
to record in the motor reach
titan two decades old, with attempts
cortex to record
could be taught cortex
to use their couldthe
thoughts
Among bemany
taught to use
challenges tied their
to thoughts
develop
the neural coordinates of movement from the
to move a mechanical arm, grasp food items,
the neural coordinates of movement from the to move a mechanical arm, grasp
ing commercially food
viable items,
devices , commerciall
for use in
motor cortex of the monkey brain dating and even feed themselves (3). The advance
motor cortex of the monkey brain dating and even feed themselves (3).
patients are theThe advance
bulky size of thepatients
equipment, are the bul
back to the 1960s (1). Progress has been un
back to the 1960s (1). Progress was hasnotable, partly
been un- because
was the monkeys'
notable, partly
thebecause the monkeys'
limited durability the limited
of the implanted elec durabil
brain appeared to have incorporated thetrodes,
derstandably slow, but, within the last 5 years,
derstandably slow, but, within the last 5 years, brain appeared to have andincorporated
the difficulty ofthe trodes,
developing and the diff
pros
thetics
thetics that
that
can can
relayrelay
sensory
sensory
feedbackfeedback
to the to the
brain (6).
Yet "the idea that we can extract a mean
ingful signal from the brain is in a way
a breakthrough," says Schwartz, referring to
the association between brain activity and re
al world actions that brain-machine interfa
-M ces have allowed researchers to unravel.

1 Evarts EV (1964) Temporal patterns of discharge of pyramidal tract

neurons during sleep and waking in the monkey. J Neurophysiol
27:152-171,
2 Hochberg LR, et al. (2006) Neuronal ensemble control of
prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature 442(7099):
164-171.

3 Velliste M, Perel S, Spalding MC, Whitford AS, Schwartz AB (2008)

Cortical control of a prosthetic arm for self-feeding. Nature
453(7198): 1098-1101.
4 Hochberg LR, et al. (2012) Reach and grasp by people with
tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature
485(7398):372-375.
5 Collinger JL, et al. (2013) High-performance neuroprosthetic
control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet 381(9866):
557-564.

6 Carey B (2012) Paralyzed, moving a robot with their minds. NY

. Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/science/
Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/science/
Woman
Woman with tetraplegia uses a robotic arm
with tetraplegia to drink
uses coffee from
a robotic a bottle.
arm toImage reprinted
drink coffee from a bottle. Image
bodies-inert-they-moved-a-robot-with-their-minds.html. Accessed reprint
by
by permission
permission from
from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Macmillan Publishers
Nature (4), copyright 2012. July 25, 2013.Ltd: Nature (4), copyrig

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1319310110
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas. 1319310110 PNAS I November
PNAS | November 12, 12, 2013 | vol.110
2013 | | vol.110
no. 46 | 18343 | no. 46 | 18343

This content downloaded from

201.131.90.36 on Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:25:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms