Zulay R. Lugo1,2*
Caterina Cinel3
Camille Jeunet4
Floriana Pichiorri5
Angela Riccio5
Selina C. Wriessnegger6- 1Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Caracas, Caracas, Venezuela
- 2Civil Association-Clinic Dispensary Padre Machado, Caracas, Venezuela
- 3CSEE, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom
- 4UMR5287, Aquitaine Institute for Cognitive and Integrative Neuroscience (INCIA), Bordeaux, France
- 5Santa Lucia Foundation (IRCCS), Rome, Italy
- 6Institute of Neural Engineering, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
Editorial on the Research Topic
Women in brain-computer interfaces
In this special Research Topic, Women in brain-computer interfaces, we intend to highlight recent research done or led by women in the field of brain-computer interfaces (BCI). As pointed out in the description of the topic, currently <30% of researchers in the world are women. Possibly some still persistent gender biases and stereotypes could be discouraging girls and women from pursuing a career in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) areas, all highly important fields in the development of BCI techniques.
In what we propose to be the first edition of an annual series dedicated to the topic of the role of women in BCI, several articles have been received fulfilling the fundamental requirement of the topic: a main authorship corresponding to women in order to highlight their involvement and interest in the field of BCI.
Forty years after the innovative idea proposed by Vidal of establishing a direct communication between the brain and computers in order to transmit and decode mental processes by means of electroencephalographic (EEG) signals allowing external actions (Vidal, 1973), technological development has allowed two parallel processes: on one hand, the development of electroencephalography (EEG) devices and computers with greater power, low cost and portability together with the appearance of new techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to be used in BCI research (Mridha et al., 2021).
On the other hand, we are observing the increasing survival rate of patients with severe brain injuries due to trauma or stroke, spinal cord lesions or progressive degenerative diseases, who require solutions to improve, restore or replace lost functions (McFarland and Wolpaw, 2011; Hochberg and Anderson, 2012; Rohm et al., 2013; Heilinger et al., 2018; Pichiorri and Mattia, 2020; Riccio et al., 2022). A more recent but already highly developed application of the BCI techniques is for the study of disorders of consciousness (DoC) and related states, to determine the presence of voluntary brain activity in apparently unconscious patients or to establish communication with conscious but severely brain-injured patients such as patients with locked-in syndrome (LIS) (Lesenfants et al., 2014; Gibson et al., 2016; Lugo et al., 2019). All these changes have widely expanded the BCI field of interest.
In the present Research Topic, Peters et al. highlight the wide use of BCI techniques in different types of lesions and diseases of the central and peripheral nervous system through a systematic review that describes the characteristics of the studies, systems and participants using augmentative and alternative communication BCI (AAC-BCI) systems.
Since EEG is the most widely used technique in BCI due to its mentioned low cost, easy handling and wide availability, there are many signals used and algorithms developed to improve the implementation of EEG-based BCI (Rashid et al., 2020). On this issue, Kostoglou and Müller-Putz describe in their article a new estimation method for cross frequency coupling (CFC), based on Linear Parameter Varying Autoregressive (LPV-AR) models, testing this method on both simulated and real data taken from patients with spinal cord injuries. This new approach might improve the decoding in motor related BCI applications for patients with this type of lesions.
Importantly, systems developed in the last 30 years of BCI research have become more and more interesting for a broader community of researchers. This can be due to improvements in the reliability and usability but also to the change of focus, namely from an application for disabled to healthy users (Blankertz et al., 2012). Especially the type of BCI, which are not consciously controlled by the user or reacting to external stimulation, called passive BCIs (pBCIs) are of main interest (Zander and Kothe, 2011). Having access to the user's ongoing brain activity enables applications spanning a variety of domains such as brain-activity based gaming (Bos et al., 2010; Holz et al., 2013), workload assessment (Wriessnegger et al., 2021); and neuromarketing (van Erp et al., 2012; Wriessnegger et al., 2017). In all these and other contexts and applications, feedback is a crucial aspect in the use of BCI techniques as it provides the subject with direct and continuous information on their own brain activity, thus allowing them to learn to modulate it in order to operate the BCI system, ultimately improving their performance (Sokunbi, 2017). Berger et al. report on explorations of a new type of visual feedback using 3D virtual reality in order to test if this type of paradigm may be more effective for the modulation of the sensory motor rhythm (SMR) than a 2D paradigm.
Finally, as already mentioned, a very important use of BCI techniques are its application in the study of DoC and related disorders as LIS, allowing to reconsider and reclassifying diagnoses. In this context, Schnakers et al. show how the detection of voluntary brain activity in non-responsive patients has led to the reconsideration of new nomenclatures for altered states of consciousness and Galiotta et al. performed a systematic review on the use of EEG-based BCI in patients with DoC. Both articles show the clear impact that t BCI techniques have had on the diagnosis, management and prognosis of these patients and also the challenges that these advances imply.
BCI is a vast field with multiple applications that pose both technical challenges and even ethical and legal considerations for its use (Chandler et al., 2022). We believe that woman can play a fundamental role in all aspects of BCI implementation and testing. As a highly multidisciplinary field, we hope that the BCI scientific community might lead the way toward gender equality in the nearby fields, e.g., STEM and neurorehabilitation among several to consider.
Author contributions
ZL: Conceptualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. CC: Supervision, Visualization, Writing—review and editing. CJ: Visualization, Writing—review and editing. FP: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing—review and editing. AR: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing—review and editing. SW: Validation, Visualization, Writing—review and editing, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Supervision.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The handling editor GM-P declared a shared affiliation with the author SW at the time of review.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Blankertz, B., Tangermann, M., and Müller, K. R. (2012). “BCI applications for the general population,” in Brain–Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice, eds J. Wolpaw, and E. W. Wolpaw (Oxford Academic), 363-372.
Bos, D. P. O., Reuderink, B., van de Laar, B., Gürkök, H., Mühl, C., Poel, M., et al. (2010). “Human-computer interaction for BCI games: usability and user experience,” 2010 International Conference on Cyberworlds, Singapore, 277-281. doi: 10.1109./CW.2010.22
Chandler, J. A., Van der Loos, K. I., Boehnke, S., Beaudry, J. S., Buchman, D. Z., and Illes, J. (2022). Brain computer interfaces and communication disabilities: ethical, legal, and social aspects of decoding speech from the brain. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 16, 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.841035
Gibson, R. M., Owen, A. M., and Cruse, D. (2016). Brain–computer interfaces for patients with disorders of consciousness. Prog. Brain Res. 228, 241–291. doi: 10.1016/bs.pbr.04003
Heilinger, A., Ortner, R., La Bella, V., Lugo, Z. R., Chatelle, C., Laureys, S., et al. (2018). Performance differences using a vibro-tactile P300 BCI in LIS-patients diagnosed with stroke and ALS. Front. Neurosci. 12, 1–10. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00514
Hochberg, L. R., and Anderson, K. D. (2012). “BCI users and their needs”, in Brain–Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice, eds J. Wolpaw and E. W. Wolpaw (Oxford University Press).
Holz, E. M., Höhne, J., Staiger-Sälzer, P., Tangermann, M., and Kübler, A. (2013). (2013). Brain-computer interface controlled gaming: evaluation of usability by severely motor restricted end-users. Artif. Intell. Med. 59, 111–120. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.08001
Lesenfants, D., Habbal, D., Lugo, Z., Lebeau, M., Horki, P., Amico, E., et al. (2014). An independent SSVEP-based brain-computer interface in locked-in syndrome. J. Neural Eng. 11, 035002. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/11/3/035002
Lugo, Z. R., Pokorny, C., Pellas, F., Noirhomme, Q., Laureys, S., Muller-Putz, G., et al. (2019). Mental imagery for brain-computer interface control and communication in non-responsive individuals. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 63, 21–27. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.02005
McFarland, D. J., and Wolpaw, J. R. (2011). Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Commun. ACM 54, 60–66. doi: 10.1145/1941487.1941506
Mridha, M. F., Das, S. C., Kabir, M. M., Lima, A. A., Islam, M. R., and Watanobe, Y. (2021). Brain-computer interface: advancement and challenges. Sensors 21, 1–46. doi: 10.3390/s21175746
Pichiorri, F., and Mattia, D. (2020). Brain-computer interfaces in neurologic rehabilitation practice. Handb Clin. Neurol. 168, 101–116. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63934-9.00009-3
Rashid, M., Sulaiman, N., Abdul Majeed, P. P. A., Musa, R. M., Ab Nasir, A. F., Bari, B. S., et al. (2020). Current status, challenges, and possible solutions of EEG-based brain-computer interface: a comprehensive review. Front. Neurorobot. 14, 1–35. doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2020.00025
Riccio, A., Schettini, F., Galiotta, V., Giraldi, E., Grasso, M. G., Cincotti, F., et al. (2022). Usability of a hybrid system combining P300-based brain-computer interface and commercial assistive technologies to enhance communication in people with multiple sclerosis. Front. Human Neurosci. 16, 868419. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.868419
Rohm, M., Schneiders, M., Müller, C., Kreilinger, A., Kaiser, V., Müller-Putz, G. R., et al. (2013). Hybrid brain-computer interfaces and hybrid neuroprostheses for restoration of upper limb functions in individuals with high-level spinal cord injury. Artif. Intell. Med. 59,133–142. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.07004
Sokunbi, M. O. (2017). Feedback of real-time fMRI signals: from concepts and principles to therapeutic interventions. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 35,117–24. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.08004
van Erp, J., Lotte, F., and Tangermann, M. (2012). Brain-computer interfaces: beyond medical applications. Computer 45, 26–34. doi: 10.1109/MC.2012.107
Vidal, J. J. (1973). Toward direct brain-computer communication. Ann. Rev. Biophysics Bioengin. 2, 157–180. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bb.02.060173.001105
Wriessnegger, S. C., Krumpl, G., Pinegger, A., and Mueller-Putz, G. R. (2017). “Mobile BCI technology: neuro IS goes out of the lab, into the field,” in Information Systems and Neuroscience: Gmunden Retreat on Neuro IS 2016 (Springer International Publishing) (pp. 59–65).
Wriessnegger, S. C., Raggam, P., Kostoglou, K., and Müller-Putz, G. R. (2021). Mental state detection using riemannian geometry on electroencephalogram brain signals. Front. Human Neurosci. 15, 746081. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.746081
Keywords: brain-computer interface, women, electroencephalography, disorders of consciousness, passive BCIs, neurofeedback
Citation: Lugo ZR, Cinel C, Jeunet C, Pichiorri F, Riccio A and Wriessnegger SC (2023) Editorial: Women in brain-computer interfaces. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 17:1260479. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1260479
Received: 17 July 2023; Accepted: 08 August 2023;
Published: 22 August 2023.
Edited and reviewed by: Gernot R. Müller-Putz, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Copyright © 2023 Lugo, Cinel, Jeunet, Pichiorri, Riccio and Wriessnegger. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Zulay R. Lugo, zulay.lugo.huc@gmail.com