Brain–Computer Interfaces - Index of

Toward Ubiquitous BCIs 363
facial muscles, which might carry useful information such as when a user blinks,
moves her eyes, frowns, or smiles.
The European Commission recently introduced the term “BNCI” to include
devices that detect physiological signals after they have passed through peripheral
nerves. The “N” in this acronym means “Neuronal.” Many people in the BCI
research community are used to thinking of such signals as cheating, since we typically
develop BCIs as systems for patients who cannot move and thus could not use
peripheral signals. However, this view will change as BCIs gain attention among
larger audiences. Users such as gamers will want to use whatever signal gives them
an advantage. Blinking, frowning, smiling, teeth clenching, and even touching an
electrode can convey different signals that might be mapped on to spells, attacks,
defenses, movement, or other game commands.
Unlike hardware, there is presently not much competition for BCI software.
The dominant software platform for BCIs is called BCI2000 [46] (see also chapter
“Using BCI2000 in BCI Research”). This software contains contributions from
many different groups and continues to grow through academic funding. OpenVibe
is another BCI software platform that (unlike others) is open source. Both BCI2000
and OpenVibe are free for academic use. Telemonitoring tools developed by TU
Graz [47] have reduced the need for researchers to travel to patients’ homes, which
can reduce the need for experts’ time. Jose Millán, Febo Cincotti, and their colleagues
within the TOBI grant are currently working on a common platform for
BCI systems. As BCIs blossom, more people will want to pay for BCI software,
which will further improve its quality, flexibility, and accessibility.
The financial cost of an invasive BCI is much higher than a non-invasive system
because neurosurgery requires very expensive experts. There are no easy ways to
eliminate this requirement for expertise! Checkups to prevent infection increase the
ongoing cost in time and money. However, invasive BCIs do not require preparation
and cleanup with each session, which reduces some ongoing costs. Invasive BCI
software is somewhat different from other BCI software because invasive BCIs produce
different signals (see chapters “Intracortical BCIs: A Brief History of Neural
Timing” and “BCIs Based on Signals form Between the Brain and Skull”).
Like any interface, using any BCI incurs costs in time and attention. Noninvasive
BCIs require users or caretakers to put the cap on the head, get a good signal, and
perhaps clean the electrodes and hair later. If the BCI needs to be updated according
to changes in brain activity or the environment, that takes more time. Some BCIs
require no training, while others require days or weeks of training. Using a BCI takes
time and requires mental resources that could be directed elsewhere. Nobody has
really studied the extent to which BCI use precludes other activity. This inattention
to attention is a major oversight in BCI research and is addressed further in the
discussion about integration.
BCIs do not require much electricity. However, if BCI use produces fatigue [2,
37], then this fatigue reflects a cost in terms of personal energy. I used a P300 and
later SSVEP BCI for about eight hours per day while reporting only mild fatigue
[4, 7], but a few subjects, especially older subjects, found even short term SSVEP
BCI use annoying [2]. Other reports have shown that patients can use P300 or other