ArticleBrain sciences2021
Effect of Distracting Background Speech in an Auditory Brain-Computer Interface.
Article in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical imperatives in the commercialization of brain-computer interfaces.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Studies so far have analyzed the effect of distractor stimuli in different types of brain-computer interface (BCI). However, the effect of a background speech has not been studied using an auditory event-related potential (ERP-BCI), a convenient option when the visual path cannot be adopted by users. Thus, the aim of the present work is to examine the impact of a background speech on selection performance and user workload in auditory BCI systems. Eleven participants tested three conditions: (i) auditory BCI control condition, (ii) auditory BCI with a background speech to ignore (non-attentional condition), and (iii) auditory BCI while the user has to pay attention to the background speech (attentional condition). The results demonstrated that, despite no significant differences in performance, shared attention to auditory BCI and background speech required a higher cognitive workload. In addition, the P300 target stimuli in the non-attentional condition were significantly higher than those in the attentional condition for several channels. The non-attentional condition was the only condition that showed significant differences in the amplitude of the P300 between target and non-target stimuli. The present study indicates that background speech, especially when it is attended to, is an important interference that should be avoided while using an auditory BCI.
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.