Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33530868›Full record

ArticleNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2021

Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication: Preferences of Individuals With Locked-in Syndrome.

Mariana P Branco, Elmar G M Pels, Ruben H Sars, Erik J Aarnoutse, Nick F Ramsey, Mariska J Vansteensel, Femke Nijboer

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. The speech neuroprosthesis.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. [Ethical considerations for medical applications of implantable brain-computer interfaces].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Locked-in syndrome revisited.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mariana P BrancoUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7316-8846
Elmar G M PelsUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8997-9515
Ruben H SarsUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5506-1087
Erik J AarnoutseUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands.
Nick F RamseyUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7136-259X
Mariska J VansteenselUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9252-5116
Femke NijboerLeiden University, Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLLeiden University · NL

Funding

Brain-Computer Interface Implant for Severe Communication DisabilityU01DC016686 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT · PI CRONE, NATHAN E, RAMSEY, NICOLAS FRANCISCUS · 2018 to 2021
$2.5M
NIDCD NIH HHS U01 DC016686
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have been proposed as an assistive technology (AT) allowing people with locked-in syndrome (LIS) to use neural signals to communicate. To design a communication BCI (cBCI) that is fully accepted by the users, their opinion should be taken into consideration during the research and development process.

objectiveWe assessed the preferences of prospective cBCI users regarding (1) the applications they would like to control with a cBCI, (2) the mental strategies they would prefer to use to control the cBCI, and (3) when during their clinical trajectory they would like to be informed about AT and cBCIs. Furthermore, we investigated if individuals diagnosed with progressive and sudden onset (SO) disorders differ in their opinion.

methodsWe interviewed 28 Dutch individuals with LIS during a 3-hour home visit using multiple-choice, ranking, and open questions. During the interview, participants were informed about BCIs and the possible mental strategies.

resultsParticipants rated (in)direct forms of communication, computer use, and environmental control as the most desired cBCI applications. In addition, active cBCI control strategies were preferred over reactive strategies. Furthermore, individuals with progressive and SO disorders preferred to be informed about AT and cBCIs at the moment they would need it.

conclusionsWe show that individuals diagnosed with progressive and SO disorders preferred, in general, the same applications, mental strategies, and time of information. By collecting the opinion of a large sample of individuals with LIS, this study provides valuable information to stakeholders in cBCI and other AT development.

Indexed as

Brain-Computer InterfacesCommunication Devices for People with DisabilitiesPatient PreferenceUser-Computer InterfaceAdultAgedDisease ProgressionFemaleHealth CommunicationHumansLocked-In SyndromeMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchTime Factorsbrain-computer interfacecommunicationlocked-in syndromeopinionuser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID33530868
PMCPMC7934157
OpenAlexW3128540763

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.