ArticleDisability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology2019
Examining sensory ability, feature matching and assessment-based adaptation for a brain-computer interface using the steady-state visually evoked potential.
Article in Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of research on augmentative and alternative communication brain-computer interface systems for individuals with disabilities.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Pooled it
- Considerations and discussions on the clear definition and definite scope of brain-computer interfaces.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
- Optimising the classification of feature-based attention in frequency-tagged electroencephalography data.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Human visual skills for brain-computer interface use: a tutorial.Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology · 2020Review
- Behind the Scenes of Noninvasive Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Review of Electroencephalography Signals, How They Are Recorded, and Why They Matter.Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups · 2019Article
- Workshops of the Seventh International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting: Not Getting Lost in Translation.Brain computer interfaces (Abingdon, England) · 2019Article
- Considering Augmentative and Alternative Communication Research for Brain-Computer Interface Practice.Assistive technology outcomes and benefits · 2019Article
- Guidelines for Feature Matching Assessment of Brain-Computer Interfaces for Augmentative and Alternative Communication.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2018Review
- Effects of simulated visual acuity and ocular motility impairments on SSVEP brain-computer interface performance: An experiment with Shuffle Speller.Brain computer interfaces (Abingdon, England) · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe investigated how overt visual attention and oculomotor control influence successful use of a visual feedback brain-computer interface (BCI) for accessing augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices in a heterogeneous population of individuals with profound neuromotor impairments. BCIs are often tested within a single patient population limiting generalization of results. This study focuses on examining individual sensory abilities with an eye toward possible interface adaptations to improve device performance.
methodsFive individuals with a range of neuromotor disorders participated in four-choice BCI control task involving the steady state visually evoked potential. The BCI graphical interface was designed to simulate a commercial AAC device to examine whether an integrated device could be used successfully by individuals with neuromotor impairment.
resultsAll participants were able to interact with the BCI and highest performance was found for participants able to employ an overt visual attention strategy. For participants with visual deficits to due to impaired oculomotor control, effective performance increased after accounting for mismatches between the graphical layout and participant visual capabilities.
conclusionAs BCIs are translated from research environments to clinical applications, the assessment of BCI-related skills will help facilitate proper device selection and provide individuals who use BCI the greatest likelihood of immediate and long term communicative success. Overall, our results indicate that adaptations can be an effective strategy to reduce barriers and increase access to BCI technology. These efforts should be directed by comprehensive assessments for matching individuals to the most appropriate device to support their complex communication needs. Implications for Rehabilitation Brain computer interfaces using the steady state visually evoked potential can be integrated with an augmentative and alternative communication device to provide access to language and literacy for individuals with neuromotor impairment. Comprehensive assessments are needed to fully understand the sensory, motor, and cognitive abilities of individuals who may use brain-computer interfaces for proper feature matching as selection of the most appropriate device including optimization device layouts and control paradigms. Oculomotor impairments negatively impact brain-computer interfaces that use the steady state visually evoked potential, but modifications to place interface stimuli and communication items in the intact visual field can improve successful outcomes.
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.