ArticleBrain computer interfaces (Abingdon, England)2019
Trends in research participant categories and descriptions in abstracts from the International BCI Meeting series, 1999 to 2016.
Article in Brain computer interfaces (Abingdon, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of research on augmentative and alternative communication brain-computer interface systems for individuals with disabilities.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Articles from the Seventh International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting.Brain computer interfaces (Abingdon, England) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Much brain-computer interface (BCI) research is intended to benefit people with disabilities (PWD), but inclusion of these individuals as study participants remains relatively rare. When participants with disabilities are included, they are described with a range of clinical and non-clinical terms with varying degrees of specificity, often leading to difficulty in interpreting or replicating results. This study examined trends in inclusion and description of study participants with disabilities across six International BCI Meetings from 1999 to 2016. Abstracts from each Meeting were analyzed by two trained independent reviewers. Results suggested a decline in participation by PWD across Meetings until the 2016 Meeting. Increased diagnostic specificity was noted at the 2013 and 2016 Meetings. Fifty-eight percent of the abstracts identified PWD as being the target beneficiaries of BCI research, though only twenty-two percent included participants with disabilities, suggesting evidence of a persistent translational gap. Participants with disabilities were most commonly described as having physical and/or communication impairments compared to impairments in other areas. Implementing participatory action research principles and user-centered design strategies continues to be necessary within BCI research to bridge the translational gap and facilitate use of BCI systems within functional environments for PWD.
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.