Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28643185›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2018

Keeping Disability in Mind: A Case Study in Implantable Brain-Computer Interface Research.

Laura Specker Sullivan, Eran Klein, Tim Brown, Matthew Sample, Michelle Pham, Paul Tubig, Raney Folland, Anjali Truitt, Sara Goering

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Laura Specker SullivanCenter for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. specker@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2596-9059
Eran KleinCenter for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Tim BrownCenter for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Matthew SampleCenter for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Michelle PhamCenter for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Paul TubigCenter for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Raney FollandCenter for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Anjali TruittCenter for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Sara GoeringCenter for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
University of Washington · USOregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

National Science Foundation EEC-1028725
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) research is an interdisciplinary area of study within Neural Engineering. Recent interest in end-user perspectives has led to an intersection with user-centered design (UCD). The goal of user-centered design is to reduce the translational gap between researchers and potential end users. However, while qualitative studies have been conducted with end users of BCI technology, little is known about individual BCI researchers' experience with and attitudes towards UCD. Given the scientific, financial, and ethical imperatives of UCD, we sought to gain a better understanding of practical and principled considerations for researchers who engage with end users. We conducted a qualitative interview case study with neural engineering researchers at a center dedicated to the creation of BCIs. Our analysis generated five themes common across interviews. The thematic analysis shows that participants identify multiple beneficiaries of their work, including other researchers, clinicians working with devices, device end users, and families and caregivers of device users. Participants value experience with device end users, and personal experience is the most meaningful type of interaction. They welcome (or even encourage) end-user input, but are skeptical of limited focus groups and case studies. They also recognize a tension between creating sophisticated devices and developing technology that will meet user needs. Finally, interviewees espouse functional, assistive goals for their technology, but describe uncertainty in what degree of function is "good enough" for individual end users. Based on these results, we offer preliminary recommendations for conducting future UCD studies in BCI and neural engineering.

Indexed as

AttitudeBrain-Computer InterfacesEngineeringPersons with DisabilitiesResearchResearch PersonnelTechnologyFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleQualitative ResearchBrain–computer interfaceBrain–machine interfaceDisabilityResearch ethicsUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID28643185
OpenAlexW2723878059

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.