Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34335203›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in human neuroscience2021

Brain-Computer Interfaces for Children With Complex Communication Needs and Limited Mobility: A Systematic Review.

Silvia Orlandi, Sarah C House, Petra Karlsson, Rami Saab, Tom Chau

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.1field-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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Brain-computer interface: an update for the clinicians.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Brain-Computer Interfaces for Stroke Motor Rehabilitation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Fatigue in children using motor imagery and P300 brain-computer interfaces.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Silvia OrlandiBloorview Research Institute, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sarah C HouseBloorview Research Institute, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Petra KarlssonCerebral Palsy Alliance, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rami SaabBloorview Research Institute, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Tom ChauBloorview Research Institute, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital · CAUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) represent a new frontier in the effort to maximize the ability of individuals with profound motor impairments to interact and communicate. While much literature points to BCIs' promise as an alternative access pathway, there have historically been few applications involving children and young adults with severe physical disabilities. As research is emerging in this sphere, this article aims to evaluate the current state of translating BCIs to the pediatric population. A systematic review was conducted using the Scopus, PubMed, and Ovid Medline databases. Studies of children and adolescents that reported BCI performance published in English in peer-reviewed journals between 2008 and May 2020 were included. Twelve publications were identified, providing strong evidence for continued research in pediatric BCIs. Research evidence was generally at multiple case study or exploratory study level, with modest sample sizes. Seven studies focused on BCIs for communication and five on mobility. Articles were categorized and grouped based on type of measurement (i.e., non-invasive and invasive), and the type of brain signal (i.e., sensory evoked potentials or movement-related potentials). Strengths and limitations of studies were identified and used to provide requirements for clinical translation of pediatric BCIs. This systematic review presents the state-of-the-art of pediatric BCIs focused on developing advanced technology to support children and youth with communication disabilities or limited manual ability. Despite a few research studies addressing the application of BCIs for communication and mobility in children, results are encouraging and future works should focus on customizable pediatric access technologies based on brain activity.

Indexed as

assistive technologybrain-computer interfacechildrencommunicationenvironmental controlsevere disabilityyouth

Identifiers

PMID34335203
PMCPMC8319030
OpenAlexW3183062051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.