The Brain Computer Interface
The Brain Computer Interface
AIR UNIVERSITY
by
14 February 2013
The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect
the official policy or position of the US government, the Department of Defense, or Air
University. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, it is not copyrighted, but is the
i
Biography
Lieutenant Colonel Brian E. Moore is an U.S. Air Force Biomedical Science Corps officer
and physician assistant assigned to the Air War College, Air University, Maxwell AFB, AL. He
graduated from the University of Nebraska with a Bachelor of Science degree in 1993 and a
Master of Physician Assistant Studies with a concentration in Family Medicine in 1997. He also
graduated from The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in 2004 with a Master
of Public Health. Lieutenant Colonel Moore has completed the U.S. Army Flight Surgeon
Course and an emergency medicine fellowship at Wright-Patterson Medical Center. Along with
numerous clinical assignments, he has served at the Defense Medical Readiness Training
Institute, HQUSCENTCOM, and the White House Medical Unit. He is a graduated squadron
commander.
ii
Abstract
iii
Introduction
“We don’t see with our eyes, or feel with our hands; we see and feel with our brains.” 1
Paul Bach-y-Rita, pioneer in the field of sensory substitution, University of Wisconsin
In the past twenty years neuroscience has made significant progress on understanding human
brain function. Likewise, the computational powers of computers have increased exponentially
interface technology (BCI) are developing. Brain-computer interfacing started in the 1970s at
the University of California, Los Angeles under a grant from the National Science Foundation, 2
and it is defined as a hardware and software communications system that bypasses peripheral
nerves and muscles and permits cerebral activity to control computers or external devices. 3
Neuroscience advances in wearable biosensors, data acquisition, and mobile brain imaging have
triggered a fresh wave of research. The ability to assist individuals with lost function from
disease or injury with this technology has been remarkable, and the next evolution of brain-
interfacing technology is already underway. Researchers worldwide have already begun studying
technologies will provide increased utility, relevance, and strategic advantage over the next two
decades. The United States Air Force needs to be postured to secure, exploit, and employ brain-
computer interface technology, with the ability to deny and deter its use by foreign competitors.
BCI research has already captured commercial interests and the potential for military
application. It is likely that BCI technology will dominate military systems in 2032. By linking
computers to the brain’s activities, new devices will take technology a giant leap forward.
Imagine a remotely piloted air vehicle, sea vehicle or ground weapons system with an array of
1
sensors and weapon systems that transmits and receives data input directly to and from the
human operator’s brain at an unprecedented rate, eliminating the delay of human sensory and
provide a multi-dimensional view of the battle space real-time with constant analysis and
cognitive intuition. A fundamental difference between the brain and the computer is the brain
uses billions of cells in parallel organization, whereas computer transistors are organized
sequentially, and electronic computers operate at speeds millions of times faster than brain
computing. The brain has significant computational breadth, but limited depth. In contrast,
computers have the depth to run an algorithm at high speed with significant data storage, but
have limits on running multiple algorithms simultaneously. 4 Currently this mismatch limits BCI
effectiveness, but the pace of computing and neuroscience research will solve this mismatch in
It is therefore imperative that the United States leads in this technology through sound policy
and strategy that ensures national security, protects interfaced systems, individuals and personal
privacy. This technology has the ability to enhance American military dominance much the
same way that nuclear weapons have since World War Two. On the other hand, potential
adversaries could take the lead in BCI technology and place the United States at a significant
strategic technological disadvantage. In 2006 the Chinese government initiated the Medium and
Long-Range Program for Science and Technology development, a strategy to enhance the
country’s innovation and technological competitiveness, including BCI technology. 5 Now is the
time for a strategy for the United States to lead in research, design, development and application
This paper will build the argument that this crucial innovation is strategically vital and will
2
begin by briefly examining current and future BCI modalities in regards to signal measurement
and control. In addition, this research will provide an overview of worldwide leaders in BCI
technology and commercial development, and will address potential future applications, and
security, privacy, ethical, and legal ramifications of this emerging technology. This paper will
conclude with strategy recommendations and build the case for a strategy to lead this critical
emerging technology.
Fundamentally, BCI is the utilization of brain signals to gather information on use intentions. 6
BCI systems can be characterized as either invasive or non-invasive, wherein invasive systems
gathering through external electrodes on the scalp. The standard BCI system operates within the
context of the following steps: signal acquisition, preprocessing and signal enhancement, feature
Signal acquisition consists of three neuroimaging modalities that function by monitoring brain
prepares the signals, followed by feature extraction which identifies discriminative information
from the brain signals. This extraction is very difficult due to distortion and artifact, and once
the extraction is complete and classified the control interface translates the signals into
meaningful commands. Traditionally the idea of deciphering thoughts and intentions was
deemed complex and remote, however in the past twenty years it has expanded tenfold. 8 This
expansion is still relatively young, and despite a convergence of research from neuroscience,
3
wide variation in BCI technologies. 9 The research community has signaled the need for a
general design framework model and comparison and evaluation of BCI designs will foster
Developing the design of a BCI framework model will allow the United States to lead and
exercise control of BCI as it emerges from the laboratory and medical rehabilitative areas into
military and commercial applications. This begins with a very basic understanding of brain
Electrophysiological Measurement
functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or near infrared spectroscopy. Currently EEG is
most the most widely used BCI interface due to high temporal resolution, less user risk, and
lower costs. 12 EEG technology has been widely available for many decades but has significantly
expanded as researchers have developed improved ways to capture and interpret signals. EEG
signals are emitted in five frequencies and are easy to measure non-invasively; however, signal
noise from inside the brain, skull, and scalp tissue results in diminished signal quality. The
signal-to-noise ratio can be increased with the use of a conducting gel in combination with the
electrodes, or with newer, “dry” electrodes made of titanium and stainless steel. These five
frequencies span awake and sleep states, visual, auditory, and motor processing. The gamma
frequency is becoming more attractive to BCI research because it seems to offer increase transfer
4
13
rate and spatial specificity.
Two growing areas of interest are MEG and ECoG. MEG measures intracellular currents by
magnetic induction. The MEG is physiologically identical to EEG but is more sensitive and
provides higher spatiotemporal resolution with less distortion by bone and tissue of the skull and
scalp. 14 The current disadvantages of MEG are high cost and increased equipment size. ECoG
provides a direct measurement of cerebral cortex electrical activity on the brain’s surface. This
modality requires invasive access and is currently confined to animal research only. In the
United States the direction of this research is aimed towards confined persons with severe motor
disabilities. 15 As these technologies mature, they will become increasingly more viable for BCI
applications.
Hemodynamic Measurement
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) are
two non-invasive, hemodynamic measurements of neural activity. Early fMRI provided low
temporal resolution due to significant hemodynamic delays and thus was deemed not well suited
for communication in BCI systems; however, recent research using fMRI to measure the blood
oxygen level during activation of neurons has led to a more real-time utilization of fMRI and
expanded possibilities with BCI. NIRS employs infrared light to penetrate the skull and record
concentrations. Like fMRI, the main limitation is the slowness of the hemodynamic response,
but it has lower costs and is more portable than fMRI. Thermoplastic molded helmets are being
used to decrease head motion artifact, and NIRS appears to be a good alternative to EEG for
future BCIs. 16 Like MEG and ECoG, medical researchers in the United States lead in this
5
technology.
As previously stated, EEG is currently the technology receiving the most focus for BCI
application. EEG BCIs interpret user intentions through monitored cerebral activity and a
response to an internal or external stimulus.17 These ERPs are control signals and can be defined
by signal types: P300, steady state visual evoked potential (SSVEP), event related
desynchronization (ERD), and slow cortical potential based. 18 The P300 BCI was introduced in
1988 but had very little peer-reviewed research until recently. 19 Between 2000 and 2010 there
was a ten-fold increase in peer-reviewed research on P300 BCI. 20 The P300 potentials have
emerged as the leader in BCI categories and manifest as positive peaks in EEG due to auditory,
visual, or somatosensory stimuli. An important aspect of P300 BCI is that it requires eliciting
large differences between target and non-target EPRs, traditionally requiring a visual row and
column paradigm on a computer display. Row and column paradigms rely on an alphabetic and
numeral speller on a computer screen, allowing the interface user to elicit a P300 response by
focusing on the desired character. The P300 speller has been the benchmark for P300 BCI
Other areas aside from evoked potentials, such as sensorimotor rhythms, are growing in
interest. Sensorimotor rhythms are composed of mu and beta rhythms, that are localized brain
activity that can be measured. The mu, or Rolandic, band occurs in the 7-13 Hz range, and the
beta band occurs between 13-30 Hz, and these sensorimotor rhythms have been used to control
BCIs and predict human voluntary motor movements before they occur. 22
6
BCI Research and Trends
This overview of BCI technology outlines the variation of research worldwide. BCI research
in North America is predominantly focused on invasive modalities for medical and rehabilitation
application, whereas Europe and Asia are almost exclusively engaged in non-invasive BCI
research for non-medical applications. Japan is particularly focused on BCI and robotic
integration.
Cooperative Research
The World Technology and Evaluation Center (WTEC) Panel Report sponsored by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2007 recognized several major BCI trends. First, BCI
research worldwide is extensive and on the rise. Second, the rapid rate of medical application of
BCI will result in future nonmedical commerce initially in the gaming, and the automotive,
robotics industries. Third, the WTEC found the BCI focus worldwide was uneven with
miniaturization. The WTEC concluded that industry and academic leaders in Europe and Japan
Overall the WTEC report determined that the European researchers were committed to long-
term, interdisciplinary research, and the European Union system more readily created
multidisciplinary teams. Further, the scale of European BCI research projects and funding
7
exceeds that found in the United States, and only the NSF Engineering Research Center
collaboration with the University of Southern California and the Defense Advanced Research
Project Agency (DARPA) prosthetic research compete with these programs. 25 Austria and
Germany are emerging as the European leaders in BCI research at Graz University of
Technology, Guger Technologies, and the Berlin BCI Interface Project. Researchers at the
University of Türbingen are focused on noninvasive fMRI and MEG, and have been recognized
as both the 2011 and 2012 worldwide Annual BCI Award winners in these areas. The University
is underway with this project between Aalborg University in Denmark and Italy’s Scuola
Superiore Santa’ Anna, and Türbingen. Currently La Sapienza in Italy is working with Case
Western Reserve and the Wadsworth Center in the U.S. on integrated BCI research projects.
Finally, Russian BCI research is being led at the Moscow State University’s Human Brain
Research Group.
BCI research is expanding across Asia. China currently leads in BCI algorithm research, with
a focus on cheap, low-technological solutions to BCI. The Chinese Government has made large-
scale investment through the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, National Natural
Science Foundation of China, and the China High-Tech Research and Development Program in
the areas of the biological sciences, engineering, and computer science. The WTEC report
concludes this investment has transformed several major universities into world-class facilities
for BCI and biomedical engineering. These include: Tsinghua University, East China Normal
8
Japan is just beginning to discover BCI research and seeks to integrate BCI research with its
established robotic applications. Unlike the United States, Japan’s BCI research is solely
noninvasive and is expanding into combined fMRI, MEG, and NIRS. Researchers at the RIKEN
Brain Science Institute, the Advanced Telecommunication Research Institute, Nippon Telegraph
and Telephone Communication Science Laboratories, and Waseda University are taking broader
steps towards BCI research. There is particular interest to integrate “normal” individuals with
enhanced cognitive function, and ethical issues are already starting to emerge. With an aging
population, medical and “assistive” needs for BCI will continue to grow. The Government is the
China and Japan are not alone in pursuit of BCI research in Asia. BCI researchers at the
Islamic Azad University, Shahed University, and Khajeh Nasir University of Technology in Iran
underway in Pakistan at the North West Frontier Provincial University of Engineering and
Technology, in India at the National Brain Research Center, and in Indonesia at the Institute for
In the United States BCI research is being conducted at many universities, in particular, the
Wadsworth Center at the State University of New York, The Walden School of Biomedical
Engineering at Purdue University, Tuffs and John Hopkins Universities. The United States
Government has generated funding through the NSF, NIH Institute of Biomedical Imaging and
Bioengineering, DARPA, and the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. Unlike Asia and Europe,
most BCI research in the United States is focused on medical and rehabilitative applications, and
9
the WTEC report identified the need for increased cooperation in BCI research between the
The potential nonmedical applications of BCI have led to commercial development, and
several companies have emerged worldwide. Among the leaders are companies in the gaming
industry such as Emotiv and NeuroSky, which has partnered with the Chinese consumer
technology company Haier on a BCI smart TV. Others are also emerging and developing
commercial BCI applications such as BCI neural processing software developer Mind
Technologies, Geger Technologies in Austria and the Sony Corporation in Japan. The WTEC
The ultimate goal of BCI is either to restore or to enhance human performance. The bulk of
current application in the United States is rehabilitative or assistive in nature, especially for
overlap exists between Functional Electrical Stimulation applications and BCI application as
outlined in figure 1.
Gerwin Schalk from the Wadsworth Center summarizes the human brain as having a wealth
of computational breadth that can parallel process and convert many inputs into many outputs,
however with little computational depth. In other words, it cannot process long commands of a
given algorithm, and at the biological cellular level computing operates at low speeds.
Computers on the other hand, have limited computational breath and can execute only few
10
algorithms at a time, but they can execute these algorithms at very high speed. 29 As a result the
powers of computers and the human brain are complimentary and the relationship is centered on
the computing language. This is the premise that future systems will be able to decode, produce
sounds or visual images with the same clarity as produced by our own brains. Future research
will continue to develop new languages that will be mutually adopted by computer and the brain.
The brain however, with its increased complexity, syntax, and taxonomy that will take longer to
learn. This communication bottleneck is the fundamental impediment and can only be overcome
(Figure 1) FES and BCI applications overlap. Reprinted from WTEC Panel Report 2007.
Blankertz, et. al. point out that another major obstacle to advancing nonmedical application of
BCI is the ability to detect accurate intentions between user and computer to control
applications. 30 One area showing improvement with EEG technology is with newer electrodes,
and research on “dry” electrodes that are easier to use and less time consuming to set-up is
11
underway. There is continued development on electrodes with improved materials, better
conduction, and smaller components. This coupled with miniaturization of sensors, electronics,
power sources, and engineering of flexible electronics and display technologies will significantly
A major impediment for advancing BCI applications is refinement of operant conditioning for
subjects to learn self-control, requiring extensive individual calibration and training. It will also
be crucial to deal with the considerable variability for constant behavioral performance, and
cognitive neuroscience research is underway to find neuronal correlates to explain and eventually
control this variability. However, despite these noted challenges, researchers in Germany are
optimistic on media and gaming applications with BCI. They are particularly focused on
managing photos, video, web surfing, and music, and although in their infancy, researchers have
used a web browser interface to control Google Earth via BCI. 32 BCI systems have progressed
beyond the paradigm of improving communications for the disabled. They now offer
measurement devices capable of assessing and decoding more brain-states in real-time, allowing
for seamless measurement of workload and performance. This will further enhance analysis of
the human brain state to better optimize human-machine and brain-computer interfacing.
Researchers at the Army Research Laboratory are focused on future task-oriented BCIs for
sensor technologies, artificial intelligence, and computer algorithms capable of detecting and
analyzing brain data. 33 This technology would enable BCIs to detect and analyze the user’s
sensory environment, mood, or mental state. Increasing the bandwidth between computers and
the brain will increase effectiveness of signal characterization. This enhanced signal
12
characterization combined with non-verbal human communication such as facial expression and
body language, provides insight about the operator’s emotions and produces neurofeedback to
potentially provide users with awareness and self-adjustment of their own brain function.
Monitoring would allow for accurate, reliable detection of fatigue, attentiveness and mood which
The progression of biosensing technologies for brain imaging in the future will move away
from today’s traditional BCIs to augmented BCIs for everyday use. 34 Future BCIs will enable
direct control of everyday objects such as lights, radio, telecommunications, computers, and so
on. To achieve this level of control BCIs would need to analyze neural signals to add
information beyond what could easily be obtained through manual input or other channels. As
BCI technology advances, persons will be increasingly able to operate complex systems in
environments that exceed the degree of freedom of our human motor systems. These advances
in BCI will allow for sequential rather than parallel function that would be very applicable to
aviation and space system operations. In 2008 a Human Performance report by the MITRE
Corporation sponsored by the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering
(DDR&E) cited a DARPA call for proposals for the suitability of non-invasive BCIs for military
Researchers at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory conclude applications in the near-term will
most likely remain task-oriented. In the far-term BCIs will emerge in a holistic approach of
applications that will merge brain, behavior, task, and environmental information with
sophisticated sensing and computational analysis much like current cloud technology. 36 DARPA
received $240 million, and the Army, Navy, and Air Force $113 million, in 2011 for cognitive
neuroscience research. 37 The rate of research and computational advances will transition from
13
task-oriented to behavior-oriented in the coming decades and will make significant
BCI Major Hurdles: Security, Social, Ethical, Moral, and Legal Issues
There will be several major challenges facing future BCI applications in the United States that
will significantly limit its use. First and foremost of these challenges will be security issues.
Currently the United States is engaged with countering cyber-attacks across commercial and
government systems. Additionally, future BCI technology will have the ability to capture a
user’s cognitive activities which will likely have social, ethical and legal repercussions in
Western democracies. Many countries don’t share the legal constraints and ethical issues that
The National Science Foundation has sponsored research by the University California
Berkeley, the University of Oxford, and the University of Geneva that explored the feasibility of
side-channel attack with BCI using low cost, commercially available BCI hardware and
software. They concluded that even with today’s rudimentary devices, a third-party attacker
could read EEG signals and produce text and images on a screen. These researchers conducted
several experiments that demonstrated that private information such as PIN numbers, area of
residence, and other private information could be ascertained with high confidence. They also
concluded that as the quality of devices improves, the success rate of attacks would also
improve. One challenge is the fact that brain-wave signatures are user unique and therefore
difficult to manipulate, but any system trained to recognize a particular user’s EEG patterns
14
As the speed of information sharing increases, and with the continued convergence of man and
machine, BCI will have tremendous security and privacy implications. BCI may produce useful
biometrics much like fingerprint and iris scanning but will require significant safeguards. BCI
will require direct assessment of the brain in context of a computational system. This assessment
will be very beneficial to add context to communication however, this will render serious privacy
concerns because of the computer interface requirement. Another serious concern will be
liability issues; how will accountability be assessed in regard to correct intent but incorrect
detection? 39
Future BCI will not only have an impact on individuals, but society as a whole. The prospect
performance enhancement span a host of ethical challenges. 40 Most ethical issues for medical
applications can be readily addressed, but privacy issues and “mind-reading” concerns for
general users will require ethical debate. The debate over research versus treatment will likely
neurofeedback to assess or control mood, emotion, fatigue, or cognitive functions may seem
extremely applicable for military operations but will raise major ethical and legal issues on what
the limit is on information gained, monitored or mental vulnerabilities manipulated. The right to
privacy could easily be violated and new laws on privacy and consent would likely be required to
address these issues. Lastly, if BCI enhancement gains in popularity limited competition will
initially drive costs and limit availability to only select populations, but as research and
15
Neuroscience research is often “dual use,” and BCI is no exception. State-of-the art research
in BCI is being developed for warfighter performance enhancement, and future BCIs will
connect to enhanced endurance exoskeletons. 43 The evolution of BCIs may eventually benefit
both society and individual, but not without risks. In the military the Uniformed Code of
Military Justice requires soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to accept medical interventions,
such as immunizations and use of prophylaxis medications to render them fit for duty. 44 These
issues are typically reserved for combat deployment situations, but the freedom to accept or
decline what some would consider enhancements will further compound the ethical use of BCIs
in military operations. Another issue with ethical and social ramifications is the use of BCI
technology for deception, detection, and interrogation. Currently, EEG P300 ERPs may prove to
be reliable for lie detection; however, under existing US law, using BCI technology within this
realm may challenge Fourth Amendment requirements on unreasonable search and seizure. 45
Finally, Epithimios Parasidis, an Associate Professor of Law at the St. Louis University School
of Law recently argued in the April 2012 Conneticut Law Review, that the U.S. military has
committed egregious legal and ethical violations related to human enhancement and
that there are legal and regulatory shortcomings for military neuroscience research, including
BCI. 47 The social, ethical and legal considerations will significantly impede BCI utilization in
the United States and Western democracies. The Project BioShield Act of 2004 allows the FDA
to use instrumental products in an emergency. This law was enacted to grant the Department of
legislation may be necessary to enable the future BCI use by the United States Armed Forces.
16
Global innovation competition has become increasing intense. In the Winter 2011 Issues in
Science and Technology article “Fighting Innovation Mercantilism,” author Stephen Ezell noted
that the output of scientific journal papers reached historic proportions in 2009. 49 Not
surprisingly, many countries have developed innovation agencies and have adopted innovation as
a key component to national strategies. The 2010 United States National Security Strategy
states, “To succeed, we must also ensure that America stays on the cutting edge of the science
and innovation that supports our prosperity, defense, and international technological
leadership.” 50 Innovation policy varies from country to country, and a positive-sum innovation
strategy that adheres to international trading rules and creates an environment of innovation
sharing is exceedingly rare. Today, win-win and zero-sum policies dominate the international
community’s approach to innovative technologies. China is among the top zero-sum focused
countries whose policies are more concentrated on mercantilism than technologic innovation.
This is evident by China’s persistent control of capital, and every day it is estimated that China
buys approximately US$1 billion in the currency markets to hold down the price of the
Renminbi. Further, many countries have continued to evade tariff reductions, and persist with
high tariffs on high-tech products and services. 51 It is not only China; the EU has resisted
compliance with the World Trade Organization’s Information Technology Agreement. This
innovation mercantilism can have significant security implications for technologies such as BCI,
Chinese Mercantilism
There are many Chinese mercantile practices that are particularly concerning in terms of BCI
technologies. China has accumulated US$3.2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves over the last
17
ten years. The Chinese strategy is to lead all advanced technology products and services. 52
Therefore, China’s mercantilism represents a fundamental threat to the United States, and despite
economic governance has a poor record. China is not acting alone. The future prospect exists
for China, the European Union, Brazil, India, Russia, and the United States to become embroiled
into a global mercantile competition with or without the involvement of other proxy nations.
Innovation advantages will become increasingly more zero-sum game and competitive advantage
Recommendations
Within the past decade the ability to bypass muscles and speech between a brain and a
computer has become a reality. 53 The increasing research and development of BCI technology
will have revolutionizing effects and will require a robust military strategy that is capable of
employing, exploiting, and securing this technology across the entire spectrum of military
operations or we will lag behind. BCI technology needs to be an integral component of the
National Security Strategy through adequate funding, research and development, and
collaborative efforts with universities and industry. The National Defense Strategy should
specifically address program management and collaborative efforts between DARPA, the
Services and National Laboratories, the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of
Health to ensure coordinated research and development of this technology. The strategy should
also address coercive and deterrent utilization of BCI technology as its utility matures for
military platforms and weapons systems. Additionally, this strategy should integrate security
and surveillance of BCI military information and sensory applications as an added domain within
18
the purview of established cyber security efforts. As BCI becomes increasingly integrated into
military platforms, a strategy to prepare and train airman needs to be developed. Finally, a legal
strategy needs to develop to assess the ethical, privacy, social, and accountability limits of BCI.
Conclusion
BCI seemed science fiction a decade ago, but there has been an explosion of neuroscience
research and development at the academic, commercial and governmental levels worldwide in
the last ten years. The utilization of BCI technology will evolve from the medical and
rehabilitation realm to commercial and military weapon and surveillance systems. The infusion
of this technology will grant a significant competitive edge to the established observe, orient,
decide, and act paradigm. Every major competitor to the United States, to include China, has
recognized the strategic advantages of BCI, with strategies to actively pursue this technology. It
is imperative that the United States Air Force, as the lead for cyber, space and air operations,
becomes and maintains the frontrunner for employing this technology to ensure dominance in an
19
Notes
1. Vicki Brower, “When Mind Meets Machine,” European Molecular Biology Organization
Reports, 6, no. 2 (2005): 108.
2. Remiquisz J Rok., Marcin Kolodziej, Andrezj Majkowski, “Brain-Computer Interface as
Measurement and Control System,” Metrology and Measurement System, xix, no. 3 (2012): 428.
3. Jonathan R. Wolpaw, et al., “Brain-Computer Interface Technology: A Review of the
First International Meeting,” IEEE Transitions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation
Engineering, 8, no. 2 (June 2000): 164.
4. Gerwin Schalk, “Brain-Computer Symbiosis,” Journal of Neural Engineering, 5 (2008):
1.
5. Robert D. Atkinson, “Enough is Enough: Confronting Chinese Innovation Mercantilism,”
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, February 2012,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83996960/Enough-is-Enough-Confronting-Chinese-Innovation-
Mercantilism.html.
6. Luis F. Nicholas-Alonson, Jamie Gomez-Gil, “Brain-Computer Interfaces, A Review,”
Sensors, no. 12 (31 January 2012):1213.
7. Ibid., 1211.
8. Ibid., 1212.
9. Ibid., 1213.
10. Stephen G. Mason, Gary E. Birch, “General Framework for Brain-Computer Interface
Design,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 4, no. 1 (March
2003): 70.
11. Luis F. Nicholas-Alonson, Jamie Gomez-Gil, “Brain-Computer Interfaces, A Review,”
Sensors, no. 12 (31 January 2012):1213.
12. Idib., 1213.
13. Idib., 1217.
14. Idib., 1218.
15. Idib., 1218.
16. Idib., 1221.
17. Reza Fazel-Rezai, et al., “P300 BCI: Current Challenges and Emerging Trends,” Frontiers
in Neuroengineering, 5, no. 14 (July 2012): 1.
18. Idib., 1.
19. Luis F. Nicholas-Alonson, Jamie Gomez-Gil, “Brain-Computer Interfaces, A Review,”
Sensors, no. 12 (31 January 2012): 1224.
20. Reza Fazel-Rezai,, et al. “P300 BCI: Current Challenges and Emerging Trends,”
Frontiers in Neuroengineering, 5, no. 14 (July 2012): 2.
21. Idib., 4.
22. Luis F. Nicholas-Alonson, Jamie Gomez-Gil, “Brain-Computer Interfaces, A Review,”
Sensors, no. 12 (31 January 2012): 1225.
23. Theodore N. Berger, International Assessment of Research and Development in Brain
Computer Interfaces, National Science Foundation World Technology Evaluation Center Panel
Final Report (Bethesda, MD, October 2007), xiii.
24. Idib., xv.
25. Idib., xvi-xvii.
20
26. Idib., xviii.
27. Idib., xix.
28. Asadi Ghanbari, Adolreza, et al., “Brain Computer Interface with Genetic Algorithm,”
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Research, 2, no. 1
(January 2012): 79.
29. Gerwin Schalk, “Brain-Computer Symbiosis,” Journal of Neural Engineering, 5 (2008):
1.
30. Brian Blankets, et al., “The Berlin Brain-Computer Interface Technology: Non-Medical
Uses of BCI Technology,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, 4, no. 198 (December 2010): 3.
31. Liao, Lun-De, et al., “Biosensor Technologies for Augmented Brain-Computer Interfaces
in the Next Decades,” Proceedings of the IEEE, 100 (13 May 2012): 1561-1563.
32. Brian Blankets, et al., “The Berlin Brain-Computer Interface Technology: Non-Medical
Uses of BCI Technology, “Frontiers in Neuroscience, 4, no. 198 (December 2010): 12.
33. Brent A. Lance, et al., “Brain-Computer Interface Technologies in the Coming Decades,
“Proceedings of the IEEE, 100, (13 May 2012): 1589.
34. Liao, Lun-De, et al., “Biosensor Technologies for Augmented Brain-Computer Interfaces
in the Next Decades,” Proceedings of the IEEE, 100 (13 May 2012): 1554.
35. Alan Shaffer, Human Performance, MITRE Corp., Office of Defense Research and
Engineering Report no. JSR-07-625 (McLean, VA March 2008): 65-67.
36. Brent A. Lance, et al. “Brain-Computer Interface Technologies in the Coming Decades,
“Proceedings of the IEEE, 100, (13 May 2012): 1595.
37. Michael N. Tennison, Jonathan D. Moreno, “Neuroscience, Ethics, and National Security:
The State of the Art,” PLoS Biology, 10, no. 3 (March 2012): 1.
38. Ivan Martinovic, et al., “On the Feasibility of Side-Channel Attacks with Brain-
Computer Interfaces,” USENIX Security Symposium Bellevue, WA, 8-10 August 2012: 13.
https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/.../sec12-final56.pdf
39. Gerwin Schalk, “Brain-Computer Symbiosis,” Journal of Neural Engineering, 5 (2008):
11.
40. Rutger J. Vlek, et al., “Ethical Issues with Brain-Computer Interface Research
Development and Dissemination,” JNPT, 36 (2012): 95.
41. Idib., 95.
42. Idib., 98.
43. Michael N. Tennison, Jonathan D. Moreno, “Neuroscience, Ethics, and National Security:
The State of the Art,” PLoS Biology, 10, no. 3 (March 2012): 1-2.
44. Idib., 2
45. Idib., 3
46. Parasiois, Efthimios, “Human Enhancement and Experimental Research in the Military,”
Connecticut Law Review, 44, no. 4 (April 2012): 1119-1120.
47. Idib., 1132.
48. Idib., 1127.
49. Stephen J. Ezell, “Fighting Innovation Mercantilism, “Issues in Science and Technology,
Winter 2010, 27, no. 2 (21 Dec 2010): 83. http://www.issues.org/27.2/ezell.html.
50. The United States National Security Strategy (May 2010): 28.
51. Stephen J. Ezell, “Fighting Innovation Mercantilism,” Issues in Science and Technology,
Winter 2010, 27, no. 2 (21 Dec 2010): 85. http://www.issues.org/27.2/ezell.html.
21
52. Robert D. Atkinson, “Enough is Enough: Confronting Chinese Innovation Mercantilism,”
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, February 2012,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83996960/Enough-is-Enough-Confronting-Chinese-Innovation-
Mercantilism.html.
53. J.R. Millán, et al., “Combining BCI and Assistive Technologies: State-of-the-Art and
Challenges,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, 4, no. 161 (September 2010): 1.
22
Bibliography
Atkinson, Robert D., “Enough is Enough: Confronting Chinese Innovation Mercantilism,” The
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, February 2012,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83996960/Enough-is-Enough-Confronting-Chinese-Innovation-
Mercantilism.html.
Asadi Ghanbari, Adolreza, et al. “Brain Computer Interface with Genetic Algorithm,”
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Research, 2, no. 1
(January 2012)
Berger, Theodore N., International Assessment of Research and Development in Brain
Computer Interfaces, National Science Foundation World Technology Evaluation Center
Panel Final Report (Bethesda, MD, October 2007)
Blankets, Brian, et al. “The Berlin Brain-Computer Interface Technology: Non-Medical Uses
of BCI Technology,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, 4, no. 198 (December 2010)
Brower, Vicki “When Mind Meets Machine,” European Molecular Biology Organization
Reports, 6, no. 2 (2005)
Ezell, Stephen J. “Fighting Innovation Mercantilism,” Issues in Science and Technology,
Winter 2010, 27, no. 2 (21 Dec 2010): http://www.issues.org/27.2/ezell.html
Fazel-Rezai, Reza, et al. “P300 BCI: Current Challenges and Emerging Trends,” Frontiers in
Neuroengineering, 5, no. 14 (July 2012)
Lance, Brent A., et al. “Brain-Computer Interface Technologies in the Coming Decades,
“Proceedings of the IEEE, 100, (13 May 2012)
Liao, Lun-De, et al. “Biosensor Technologies for Augmented Brain-Computer Interfaces in the
Next Decades,” Proceedings of the IEEE, 100 (13 May 2012)
Martinovic, Ivan, et al. “On the Feasibility of Side-Channel Attacks with Brain-Computer
Interfaces,” USENIX Security Symposium Bellevue, WA, 8-10 August 2012
https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/.../sec12-final56.pdf
Mason, Steven G., Birch, Gary E., “General Framework for Brain-Computer Interface Design,”
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 4, no. 1 (March
2003)
Millán, J. R. et al. “Combining BCI and Assistive Technologies: State-of-the-Art and
Challenges,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, 4, no. 161 (September 2010)
Parasiois, Efthimios “Human Enhancement and Experimental Research in the Military,”
Connecticut Law Review, 44, no. 4 (April 2012)
Nicholas-Alonson, Luis F., Gomez-Gil, Jaime “Brain-Computer Interfaces, A Review,”
Sensors, no. 12 (31 January 2012)
Rok, Remiquisz J., Kolodziej, Marcin, Majkowski, Andrzej “Brain-Computer Interface as
Measurement and Control System,” Metrology and Measurement System, xix, no. 3 (2012)
Schalk, Gerwin “Brain-Computer Symbiosis,” Journal of Neural Engineering, 5 (2008)
Shaffer, Alan Human Performance, Office of Defense Research and Engineering Report no.
JSR-07-625 (McLean, VA March 2008)
Tennison, Michael N., Moreno, Jonathan D. “Neuroscience, Ethics, and National Security: The
State of the Art,” PLoS Biology, 10, no. 3 (March 2012)
Vlek, Rutger J., et al. “Ethical Issues with Brain-Computer Interface Research Development
and Dissemination,” JNPT, 36 (2012)
23
Wolpaw, Jonathan R., et al., “Brain-Computer Interface Technology: A Review of the First
International Meeting,” IEEE Transitions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation
Engineering, 8, no. 2 (June 2000)
24