Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29527584›Full record

ArticleCurrent opinion in biomedical engineering2017

EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces.

D J McFarland, J R Wolpaw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current opinion in biomedical engineering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Text Sequence Stimulation for High-Speed and Comfortable SSVEP-BCI.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Graph convolution network-based eeg signal analysis: a review.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

D J McFarlandNational Center for Adaptive Neurotechnologies, Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.
J R WolpawNational Center for Adaptive Neurotechnologies, Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.

Funding

Training and DisseminationP41EB018783 · NIBIB · WADSWORTH CENTER · PI Theresa M. Vaughan · 2014 to 2026
$15.4M
NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB018783
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) are real-time computer-based systems that translate brain signals into useful commands. To date most applications have been demonstrations of proof-of-principle; widespread use by people who could benefit from this technology requires further development. Improvements in current EEG recording technology are needed. Better sensors would be easier to apply, more confortable for the user, and produce higher quality and more stable signals. Although considerable effort has been devoted to evaluating classifiers using public datasets, more attention to real-time signal processing issues and to optimizing the mutually adaptive interaction between the brain and the BCI are essential for improving BCI performance. Further development of applications is also needed, particularly applications of BCI technology to rehabilitation. The design of rehabilitation applications hinges on the nature of BCI control and how it might be used to induce and guide beneficial plasticity in the brain.

Identifiers

PMID29527584
PMCPMC5839510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.