Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18310804›Full record

ReviewJournal of neural engineering2008

Brain-computer symbiosis.

Gerwin Schalk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neural engineering, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Homology modeling in the time of collective and artificial intelligence.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Toward a high-throughput auditory P300-based brain-computer interface.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2009
    Article
  15. Advanced neurotechnologies for chronic neural interfaces: new horizons and clinical opportunities.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2008
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Gerwin SchalkBrain-Computer Interface Research and Development Program, Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA. schalk@wadsworth.org

Funding

GENERAL PURPOSE BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACE(BCI)SYSTEMR01EB000856 · NIBIB · WADSWORTH CENTER · PI SCHALK, GERWIN, WOLPAW, JONATHAN RICKEL · 2002 to 2012
$9.3M
BCI2000: SOFTWARE FOR BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACE RESEARCHR01EB006356 · NIBIB · WADSWORTH CENTER · PI SCHALK, GERWIN · 2006 to 2009
$1.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB000856NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB006356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The theoretical groundwork of the 1930s and 1940s and the technical advance of computers in the following decades provided the basis for dramatic increases in human efficiency. While computers continue to evolve, and we can still expect increasing benefits from their use, the interface between humans and computers has begun to present a serious impediment to full realization of the potential payoff. This paper is about the theoretical and practical possibility that direct communication between the brain and the computer can be used to overcome this impediment by improving or augmenting conventional forms of human communication. It is about the opportunity that the limitations of our body's input and output capacities can be overcome using direct interaction with the brain, and it discusses the assumptions, possible limitations and implications of a technology that I anticipate will be a major source of pervasive changes in the coming decades.

Indexed as

ComputersUser-Computer InterfaceBrainHumans

Identifiers

PMID18310804
PMCPMC2722922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.