ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2015
Qualitative assessment of patients' attitudes and expectations toward BCIs and implications for future technology development.
Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consent in flux: when brain‑computer interface embodiment undermines informed consent.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- MotiVE BCI: motivation models including valence and expectancy in brain-computer interface use.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Integrating Patient Perspectives Into the Digital Health Technology Readiness Framework: Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Patient Perspectives on Digital Technology and Experiences of Computerized History-Taking for Chest Pain Management in the Emergency Department: CLEOS-CPDS Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Exploring disparities in self-reported knowledge about neurotechnology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Recent applications of EEG-based brain-computer-interface in the medical field.Military Medical Research · 2025Review
- Ethical issues raised by incorporating personalized language models into brain-computer interface communication technologies: a qualitative study of individuals with neurological disease.Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology · 2024Article
- Factors influencing the social acceptance of brain-computer interface technology among Chinese general public: an exploratory study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Neurosurgery and the Brain-Computer Interface.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Review
- The ethical significance of user-control in AI-driven speech-BCIs: a narrative review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Review
- Patients' perspectives on digital health tools.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Towards aJournal of neural engineering · 2022Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Endogenous EEG-Based BCIs for Dynamic Device Control.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- Aging 4.0? Rethinking the ethical framing of technology-assisted eldercare.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2021Article
- Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication: Preferences of Individuals With Locked-in Syndrome.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2021Article
- Progress in Brain Computer Interface: Challenges and Opportunities.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2021Review
- What is it like to use a BCI? - insights from an interview study with brain-computer interface users.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Using brain-computer interfaces: a scoping review of studies employing social research methods.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Keeping Disability in Mind: A Case Study in Implantable Brain-Computer Interface Research.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain-computer-interfaces (BCIs) are important for the next generation of neuro-prosthesis innovations. Only few pilot projects have tested patients' abilities to control BCIs as well as their satisfaction with the offered technologies. On the one hand, little is known about patients' moral attitudes toward the benefit-risk-ratio of BCIs as well as their needs, priorities, and expectations. On the other hand, ethics experts intensively discuss the general risks of BCIs as well as the limits of neuro-enhancement. To our knowledge, we present here the first qualitative interview study with ten chronic patients matching the potential user categories for motor and communication BCIs to assess their practical and moral attitudes toward this technology. The interviews reveal practical and moral attitudes toward motor BCIs that can impact future technology development. We discuss our empirical findings on patients' perspectives and compare them to neuroscientists' and ethicists' perspectives. Our analysis indicates only partial overlap between the potential users' and the experts' assessments of BCI-technology. It points out the importance of considering the needs and desires of the targeted patient group. Based on our findings, we suggest a multi-fold approach to the development of clinical BCIs, rooted in the participatory technology-development. We conclude that clinical BCI development needs to be explored in a disease-related and culturally sensitive way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.