Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30117107›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2019

Critiquing the Concept of BCI Illiteracy.

Margaret C Thompson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Amygdala self-neuromodulation capacity as a window for process-related network recruitment.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Evaluating the Feasibility of Visual Imagery for an EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interface.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Margaret C ThompsonDepartment of Electrical Engineering, University of Washington, 185 Stevens Way, Paul Allen Center - Room AE100R, Campus Box 352500, Seattle, WA, 98195-2500, USA. mthomps2@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5435-8989

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are a form of technology that read a user's neural signals to perform a task, often with the aim of inferring user intention. They demonstrate potential in a wide range of clinical, commercial, and personal applications. But BCIs are not always simple to operate, and even with training some BCI users do not operate their systems as intended. Many researchers have described this phenomenon as "BCI illiteracy," and a body of research has emerged aiming to characterize, predict, and solve this perceived problem. However, BCI illiteracy is an inadequate concept for explaining difficulty that users face in operating BCI systems. BCI illiteracy is a methodologically weak concept; furthermore, it relies on the flawed assumption that BCI users possess physiological or functional traits that prevent proficient performance during BCI use. Alternative concepts to BCI illiteracy may offer better outcomes for prospective users and may avoid the conceptual pitfalls that BCI illiteracy brings to the BCI research process.

Indexed as

Brain-Computer InterfacesLearningUser-Computer InterfaceEquipment DesignHumansTask Performance and AnalysisBCI illiteracyBrain–computer interfaceBrain–machine interfaceResearch ethicsUser-centered design

Identifiers

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.