ArticleIEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering2017
Performance Assessment of a Custom, Portable, and Low-Cost Brain-Computer Interface Platform.
Article in IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Few-Channel Brain-Computer Interface System Based on a Heuristic Algorithm.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Application of biomimetic approaches in the treatment of neurological disorders.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Design and Demonstration of a Hybrid FES-BCI-Based Robotic Neurorehabilitation System for Lower Limbs.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Bibliometric Analysis of the Application of Brain-Computer Interface in Rehabilitation Medicine Over the Past 20 Years.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Brain-computer interface: trend, challenges, and threats.Brain informatics · 2023Review
- Review of Performance Improvement of a Noninvasive Brain-computer Interface in Communication and Motor Control for Clinical Applications.Juntendo Iji zasshi = Juntendo medical journal · 2023Review
- The Portiloop: A deep learning-based open science tool for closed-loop brain stimulation.PloS one · 2022Article
- Embedded Brain Computer Interface: State-of-the-Art in Research.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Induction of Neural Plasticity Using a Low-Cost Open Source Brain-Computer Interface and a 3D-Printed Wrist Exoskeleton.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Optimization of Task Allocation for Collaborative Brain-Computer Interface Based on Motor Imagery.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- A feasibility study of a complete low-cost consumer-grade brain-computer interface system.Heliyon · 2020Article
- A benchtop system to assess the feasibility of a fully independent and implantable brain-machine interface.Journal of neural engineering · 2019Article
- Cost-efficient and Custom Electrode-holder Assembly Infrastructure for EEG Recordings.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveConventional brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are often expensive, complex to operate, and lack portability, which confines their use to laboratory settings. Portable, inexpensive BCIs can mitigate these problems, but it remains unclear whether their low-cost design compromises their performance. Therefore, we developed a portable, low-cost BCI and compared its performance to that of a conventional BCI.
methodsThe BCI was assembled by integrating a custom electroencephalogram (EEG) amplifier with an open-source microcontroller and a touchscreen. The function of the amplifier was first validated against a commercial bioamplifier, followed by a head-to-head comparison between the custom BCI (using four EEG channels) and a conventional 32-channel BCI. Specifically, five able-bodied subjects were cued to alternate between hand opening/closing and remaining motionless while the BCI decoded their movement state in real time and provided visual feedback through a light emitting diode. Subjects repeated the above task for a total of 10 trials, and were unaware of which system was being used. The performance in each trial was defined as the temporal correlation between the cues and the decoded states.
resultsThe EEG data simultaneously acquired with the custom and commercial amplifiers were visually similar and highly correlated ( ρ = 0.79). The decoding performances of the custom and conventional BCIs averaged across trials and subjects were 0.70 ± 0.12 and 0.68 ± 0.10, respectively, and were not significantly different.
conclusionThe performance of our portable, low-cost BCI is comparable to that of the conventional BCIs. SIGNIFICANCE: Platforms, such as the one developed here, are suitable for BCI applications outside of a laboratory.
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.