Abstract
Questioning the evidence for BCI-based communication in the complete locked-in state.
Highlights
These systems did not work for completely locked-in patients, leading to the conclusion that voluntary brain regulation is not possible in the complete locked-in state (CLIS) [2,3]. This changed in 2014 when Gallegos-Ayala and colleagues [4] presented a case study suggesting that near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) could be used for communication in the CLIS
As the results are substantially different from the results reported in the original paper, I question the claim of NIRS-based brain–computer interface (BCI) communication in the CLIS
A reanalysis of the data from Chaudhary and colleagues [5] has shown no significant difference in the hemodynamic response to "yes" and "no" questions, and the NIRS data could not be classified with an accuracy significantly above chance level
Summary
When Birbaumer and colleagues [1] showed in 1999 for the first time that a person in a locked-in state can use a brain–computer interface (BCI) to communicate, it created the hope of BCIs restoring communication in the complete locked-in state (CLIS), in which a patient has no remaining muscle control Since this pioneering work, multiple electroencephalography (EEG)-based BCI systems have been successfully tested with locked-in patients [2]. These systems did not work for completely locked-in patients, leading to the conclusion that voluntary brain regulation is not possible in the CLIS [2,3] This changed in 2014 when Gallegos-Ayala and colleagues [4] presented a case study suggesting that near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) could be used for communication in the CLIS.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
