Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jun 15;10(1):385.
doi: 10.1038/s41597-023-02260-6.

High-density scalp electroencephalogram dataset during sensorimotor rhythm-based brain-computer interfacing

Affiliations

High-density scalp electroencephalogram dataset during sensorimotor rhythm-based brain-computer interfacing

Seitaro Iwama et al. Sci Data. .

Abstract

Real-time functional imaging of human neural activity and its closed-loop feedback enable voluntary control of targeted brain regions. In particular, a brain-computer interface (BCI), a direct bridge of neural activities and machine actuation is one promising clinical application of neurofeedback. Although a variety of studies reported successful self-regulation of motor cortical activities probed by scalp electroencephalogram (EEG), it remains unclear how neurophysiological, experimental conditions or BCI designs influence variability in BCI learning. Here, we provide the EEG data during using BCIs based on sensorimotor rhythm (SMR), consisting of 4 separate datasets. All EEG data were acquired with a high-density scalp EEG setup containing 128 channels covering the whole head. All participants were instructed to perform motor imagery of right-hand movement as the strategy to control BCIs based on the task-related power attenuation of SMR magnitude, that is event-related desynchronization. This dataset would allow researchers to explore the potential source of variability in BCI learning efficiency and facilitate follow-up studies to test the explicit hypotheses explored by the dataset.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

J.U. is a founder and representative director of the university startup company, LIFESCAPES Inc. involved in the research, development, and sales of rehabilitation devices, including brain-computer interfaces. He receives a salary from LIFESCAPES Inc., and holds shares in LIFESCAPES Inc. This company does not have any relationships with the device or setup used in the current study. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Experimental configuration. (a) Electrode locations used for online BCI operation. The pink cross indicates the electrode around the sensorimotor cortex contralateral to the right hand (C3 channel in the international 10–20 system) and blue crosses indicate the reference electrode used for the large-Laplacian filter. (b) Time-courses of a trials used in each dataset.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Power spectra derived from four datasets. Gray lines indicate the average value from single participant and black line indicates the global mean. Four panels represent scalp EEG signals derived from C3 channel from each dataset, respectively.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Time-frequency representations and Topographic maps of SMR-ERD from each dataset. (a) Time-frequency maps of scalp EEG signals around the sensorimotor cortex contralateral to the right hand (C3 channel). Across datasets, the task-related power attenuation in 8–30 Hz was observed during imagery period. (b) Topographic representations of the task-related spectral power change in the alpha-band (8–13 Hz). The white cross indicates C3 channel. (c) Topographic representations of the task-related spectral power change in the beta-band (14–30 Hz).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Neural decoding performance using spectral power-based featuresNeural decoding performance to classify the spectral EEG power into the resting-state and motor imagery task was analyzed in a participant-by-participant manner. The distribution of cross-validated accuracy was visualized using the violin plot. The red dashed line indicates the chance-level accuracy.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Shanechi MM. Brain–machine interfaces from motor to mood. Nat. Neurosci. 2019 2210. 2019;22:1554–1564. - PubMed
    1. Ramot, M. et al. Direct modulation of aberrant brain network connectivity through real-time NeuroFeedback. Elife6 (2017). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sitaram R, et al. Closed-loop brain training: The science of neurofeedback. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2017;18:86–100. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.164. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Subramanian L, et al. Real-Time Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Neurofeedback for Treatment of Parkinson’s Disease. J. Neurosci. 2011;31:16309–16317. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3498-11.2011. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pichiorri F, et al. Brain-computer interface boosts motor imagery practice during stroke recovery. Ann. Neurol. 2015;77:851–865. doi: 10.1002/ana.24390. - DOI - PubMed