Invasive Brain–Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping Review

Background: The rapid expansion of the brain–computer interface for patients with neurological deficits has garnered significant interest, and for patients, it provides an additional route where conventional rehabilitation has its limits. This has particularly been the case for patients who lose the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Shujhat Khan, Leonie Kallis, Harry Mee, Salim El Hadwe, Damiano Barone, Peter Hutchinson, Angelos Kolias
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2025-03-01
Series:Brain Sciences
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/15/4/336
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850183259027144704
author Shujhat Khan
Leonie Kallis
Harry Mee
Salim El Hadwe
Damiano Barone
Peter Hutchinson
Angelos Kolias
author_facet Shujhat Khan
Leonie Kallis
Harry Mee
Salim El Hadwe
Damiano Barone
Peter Hutchinson
Angelos Kolias
author_sort Shujhat Khan
collection DOAJ
description Background: The rapid expansion of the brain–computer interface for patients with neurological deficits has garnered significant interest, and for patients, it provides an additional route where conventional rehabilitation has its limits. This has particularly been the case for patients who lose the ability to communicate. Circumventing neural injuries by recording from the intact cortex and subcortex has the potential to allow patients to communicate and restore self-expression. Discoveries over the last 10–15 years have been possible through advancements in technology, neuroscience, and computing. By examining studies involving intracranial brain–computer interfaces that aim to restore communication, we aimed to explore the advances made and explore where the technology is heading. Methods: For this scoping review, we systematically searched PubMed and OVID Embase. After processing the articles, the search yielded 41 articles that we included in this review. Results: The articles predominantly assessed patients who had either suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cervical cord injury, or brainstem stroke, resulting in tetraplegia and, in some cases, difficulty speaking. Of the intracranial implants, ten had ALS, six had brainstem stroke, and thirteen had a spinal cord injury. Stereoelectroencephalography was also used, but the results, whilst promising, are still in their infancy. Studies involving patients who were moving cursors on a screen could improve the speed of movement by optimising the interface and utilising better decoding methods. In recent years, intracortical devices have been successfully used for accurate speech-to-text and speech-to-audio decoding in patients who are unable to speak. Conclusions: Here, we summarise the progress made by BCIs used for communication. Speech decoding directly from the cortex can provide a novel therapeutic method to restore full, embodied communication to patients suffering from tetraplegia who otherwise cannot communicate.
format Article
id doaj-art-18596fc0dbf548f3a2f43b9e83d40d03
institution OA Journals
issn 2076-3425
language English
publishDate 2025-03-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Brain Sciences
spelling doaj-art-18596fc0dbf548f3a2f43b9e83d40d032025-08-20T02:17:25ZengMDPI AGBrain Sciences2076-34252025-03-0115433610.3390/brainsci15040336Invasive Brain–Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping ReviewShujhat Khan0Leonie Kallis1Harry Mee2Salim El Hadwe3Damiano Barone4Peter Hutchinson5Angelos Kolias6Department of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UKDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Trinity Ln, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UKDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UKDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UKDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UKDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UKDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UKBackground: The rapid expansion of the brain–computer interface for patients with neurological deficits has garnered significant interest, and for patients, it provides an additional route where conventional rehabilitation has its limits. This has particularly been the case for patients who lose the ability to communicate. Circumventing neural injuries by recording from the intact cortex and subcortex has the potential to allow patients to communicate and restore self-expression. Discoveries over the last 10–15 years have been possible through advancements in technology, neuroscience, and computing. By examining studies involving intracranial brain–computer interfaces that aim to restore communication, we aimed to explore the advances made and explore where the technology is heading. Methods: For this scoping review, we systematically searched PubMed and OVID Embase. After processing the articles, the search yielded 41 articles that we included in this review. Results: The articles predominantly assessed patients who had either suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cervical cord injury, or brainstem stroke, resulting in tetraplegia and, in some cases, difficulty speaking. Of the intracranial implants, ten had ALS, six had brainstem stroke, and thirteen had a spinal cord injury. Stereoelectroencephalography was also used, but the results, whilst promising, are still in their infancy. Studies involving patients who were moving cursors on a screen could improve the speed of movement by optimising the interface and utilising better decoding methods. In recent years, intracortical devices have been successfully used for accurate speech-to-text and speech-to-audio decoding in patients who are unable to speak. Conclusions: Here, we summarise the progress made by BCIs used for communication. Speech decoding directly from the cortex can provide a novel therapeutic method to restore full, embodied communication to patients suffering from tetraplegia who otherwise cannot communicate.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/15/4/336brain–computer interfacebrain–machine interfaceBCIneurotechnologyparalysisALS
spellingShingle Shujhat Khan
Leonie Kallis
Harry Mee
Salim El Hadwe
Damiano Barone
Peter Hutchinson
Angelos Kolias
Invasive Brain–Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping Review
Brain Sciences
brain–computer interface
brain–machine interface
BCI
neurotechnology
paralysis
ALS
title Invasive Brain–Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping Review
title_full Invasive Brain–Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping Review
title_fullStr Invasive Brain–Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping Review
title_full_unstemmed Invasive Brain–Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping Review
title_short Invasive Brain–Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping Review
title_sort invasive brain computer interface for communication a scoping review
topic brain–computer interface
brain–machine interface
BCI
neurotechnology
paralysis
ALS
url https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/15/4/336
work_keys_str_mv AT shujhatkhan invasivebraincomputerinterfaceforcommunicationascopingreview
AT leoniekallis invasivebraincomputerinterfaceforcommunicationascopingreview
AT harrymee invasivebraincomputerinterfaceforcommunicationascopingreview
AT salimelhadwe invasivebraincomputerinterfaceforcommunicationascopingreview
AT damianobarone invasivebraincomputerinterfaceforcommunicationascopingreview
AT peterhutchinson invasivebraincomputerinterfaceforcommunicationascopingreview
AT angeloskolias invasivebraincomputerinterfaceforcommunicationascopingreview