ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2021
Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in Visual Evoked Potential-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces for Motor Rehabilitation Applications: Systematic Review and Future Directions.
Review 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 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transfer learning for EEG-based BCIs: a comparative evaluation and optimization of data alignment methods.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2026Article
- Current status and future prospects of brain-computer interfaces in the field of neurological disease rehabilitation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in rehabilitation: a review of clinical effectiveness, real-world performance, safety, and equity across modalities and settings.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Dataset of binocularly coded steady-state visual evoked potentials recorded with an augmented reality headset.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Brain-Computer Interfaces in Rehabilitation: Implementation Models and Future Perspectives.Cureus · 2025Article
- Convolutional neural networks decode finger movements in motor sequence learning from MEG data.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Sensing and Control Strategies Used in FES Systems Aimed at Assistance and Rehabilitation of Foot Drop: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- VEPdgets: Towards Richer Interaction Elements Based on Visually Evoked Potentials.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Non-invasive EEG-based BCI spellers from the beginning to today: a mini-review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Review
- Identifying Thematics in a Brain-Computer Interface Research.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2023Review
- Research hotspots and trends of brain-computer interface technology in stroke: a bibliometric study and visualization analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) is a technology that uses electroencephalographic (EEG) signals to control external devices, such as Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES). Visual BCI paradigms based on P300 and Steady State Visually Evoked potentials (SSVEP) have shown high potential for clinical purposes. Numerous studies have been published on P300- and SSVEP-based non-invasive BCIs, but many of them present two shortcomings: (1) they are not aimed for motor rehabilitation applications, and (2) they do not report in detail the artificial intelligence (AI) methods used for classification, or their performance metrics. To address this gap, in this paper the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology was applied to prepare a systematic literature review (SLR). Papers older than 10 years, repeated or not related to a motor rehabilitation application, were excluded. Of all the studies, 51.02% referred to theoretical analysis of classification algorithms. Of the remaining, 28.48% were for spelling, 12.73% for diverse applications (control of wheelchair or home appliances), and only 7.77% were focused on motor rehabilitation. After the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and quality screening was performed, 34 articles were selected. Of them, 26.47% used the P300 and 55.8% the SSVEP signal. Five applications categories were established: Rehabilitation Systems (17.64%), Virtual Reality environments (23.52%), FES (17.64%), Orthosis (29.41%), and Prosthesis (11.76%). Of all the works, only four performed tests with patients. The most reported machine learning (ML) algorithms used for classification were linear discriminant analysis (LDA) (48.64%) and support vector machine (16.21%), while only one study used a deep learning algorithm: a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). The reported accuracy ranged from 38.02 to 100%, and the Information Transfer Rate from 1.55 to 49.25 bits per minute. While LDA is still the most used AI algorithm, CNN has shown promising results, but due to their high technical implementation requirements, many researchers do not justify its implementation as worthwile. To achieve quick and accurate online BCIs for motor rehabilitation applications, future works on SSVEP-, P300-based and hybrid BCIs should focus on optimizing the visual stimulation module and the training stage of ML and DL algorithms.
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.