BNCI Horizon 2020 - Towards a Roadmap for Brain/Neural Computer Interaction

In this paper, we present BNCI Horizon 2020, an EU Coordination and Support Action (CSA) that will provide a roadmap for brain-computer interaction research for the next years, starting in 2013, and aiming at research efforts until 2020 and beyond. The project is a successor of the earlier EU-funded Future BNCI CSA that started in 2010 and produced a roadmap for a shorter time period. We present how we, a consortium of the main European BCI research groups as well as companies and end user representatives, expect to tackle the problem of designing a roadmap for BCI research. In this paper, we define the field with its recent developments, in particular by considering publications and EU-funded research projects, and we discuss how we plan to involve research groups, companies, and user groups in our effort to pave the way for useful and fruitful EU-funded BCI research for the next ten years

Novel applications of BCI technology: Psychophysiological optimization of working conditions in industry

Brain Computer Interface (BCI) research advanced for more than forty years, providing a rich variety of sophisticated data analysis methods. Yet, most BCI studies have been restricted to the laboratory with controlled and undisturbed environment. BCI research was aiming at developing tools for communication and control. Recently, BCI research has broadened to explore novel applications for improved man-machine interaction. In the present study, we investigated the option to employ neurotechnology in an industrial environment for the psychophysiological optimization of working conditions in such settings. Our findings suggest that it is possible to use BCI-related analysis techniques to qualify responses of an operator by assessing the depth of cognitive processing on the basis of neuronal correlates of behaviourally relevant measures. This could lead to assistive technologies helping to avoid accidents in working environments by designing a collaborative workspace in wh ich the environment takes into account the actual cognitive mental state of the operator

BCI Software Platforms

International audienc

Bci software platforms

International audienc

Cánula nasal de alto flujo en lactantes: experiencia en una unidad de paciente crítico

ResumenIntroducciónLa cánula nasal de alto flujo (CNAF) es un método de soporte respiratorio cada vez más utilizado en pediatría por sus resultados y seguridad.ObjetivoDeterminar la efectividad de la CNAF, evaluar factores asociados a fracaso y complicaciones relacionadas con su uso en lactantes.Pacientes y métodoSe analizaron los datos demográficos, clínicos, gasométricos, radiológicos y complicaciones de los pacientes conectados a CNAF en una unidad crítica entre junio de 2012 y septiembre de 2014. Se compararon los pacientes que fracasaron con los respondedores a CNAF, considerándose fracaso la necesidad de un mayor soporte respiratorio durante las primeras 48h de conexión. Se utilizó test de Kolmogorov Smirnov, U de Mann-Whitney, Chi cuadrado, test exacto de Fisher, correlaciones y Modelo de regresión logística binaria para p≤0,05.ResultadosUn total de 109 pacientes. Mediana de edad y peso: 1 mes (0,2-20 meses) y 3,7kg (2-10kg); percentil 95: 3,7 meses y 5,7kg respectivamente. El diagnóstico y patrón radiológico más frecuente fue bronquiolitis (53,2%) e infiltrado intersticial (56%). Un 70,6% respondió. Hubo diferencia significativa entre fracaso y respuesta en el diagnóstico (p=0,013), radiografía (p=0,018), contexto de conexión (p<0,0001), pCO2 (mediana 40,7mmHg [15,4-67mmHg] versus 47,3mmHg [28,6-71,3mmHg], p=0,004) y horas de CNAF (mediana 60,75h [5-621,5h] versus 10,5h [1-29h], p<0,0001). El OR de PCO2≥55mmHg para fracaso fue 2,97 (IC 95%: 1,08-8,17; p=0,035). Ningún paciente falleció ni registró complicaciones.ConclusiónEl porcentaje de éxito observado fue similar a lo publicado. En esta muestra el fracaso de CNAF solo se asoció a una pCO2 inicial ≥55mmHg. Su uso se consideró seguro al no reportarse complicaciones relacionadas a su utilización. Se requiere de un estudio multicéntrico, aleatorizado y controlado para contrastar estos resultados.AbstractIntroductionThe high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a method of respiratory support that is increasingly being used in paediatrics due to its results and safety.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of HFNC, as well as to evaluate the factors related to its failure and complications associated with its use in infants.Patients and methodAn analysis was performed on the demographic, clinical, blood gas, and radiological data, as well as the complications of patients connected to a HFNC in a critical care unit between June 2012 and September 2014. A comparison was made between the patients who failed and those who responded to HFNC. A failure was considered as the need for further respiratory support during the first 48hours of connection. The Kolmogorov Smirnov, Mann-Whitney U, chi squared and the Exact Fisher test were used, as well as correlations and a binary logistic regression model for P≤.05.ResultsThe study included 109 patients, with a median age and weight: 1 month (0.2-20 months) and 3.7kg (2-10kg); 95 percentile: 3.7 months and 5.7kg, respectively. The most frequent diagnosis and radiological pattern was bronchiolitis (53.2%) and interstitial infiltration (56%). Around 70.6% responded. There was a significant difference between failure and response in the diagnosis (P=.013), radiography (P=018), connection context (P<.0001), pCO2 (median 40.7mmHg [15.4–67 mmHg] versus 47.3mmHg [28.6-71.3mmHg], P=.004) and hours on HFNC (median 60.75hrs [5-621.5 hrs] versus 10.5hrs [1-29 hrs], P<.0001). The OR of the PCO2 ≥ 55mmHg for failure was 2.97 (95% CI; 1.08-8.17; P=.035). No patient died and no complications were recorded.ConclusionThe percentage success observed was similar to that published. In this sample, the failure of HFNC was only associated with an initial pCO2 ≥ 55mmHg. On there being no complications reported as regards it use, it is considered safe, although a randomised, controlled, multicentre study is required to compare and contrast these results