ArticleCureus2022
Establishing a Clinical Brain-Computer Interface Program for Children With Severe Neurological Disabilities.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brain-computer interfaces: innovations and challenges in the field of cerebral palsy rehabilitation.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
- Wireless Electroencephalography in Research on Children With Developmental Disabilities: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Brain-computer interfaces in pediatric populations: research advances, application challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Individualized brain-computer interface for people with disabilities: a review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- Master classes of the tenth international brain-computer interface meeting: showcasing the research of BCI trainees.Journal of neural engineering · 2025Article
- Postmovement Beta Rebound in Real and Imagined Movement.Motor control · 2025Article
- BCI move: exploring pediatric BCI-controlled power mobility.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Utility of Electroencephalograms for Enhancing Clinical Care and Rehabilitation of Children with Acquired Brain Injury.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
- EEG-based sensorimotor neurofeedback for motor neurorehabilitation in children and adults: A scoping review.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Article
- Fatigue in children using motor imagery and P300 brain-computer interfaces.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Caregivers in implantable brain-computer interface research: a scoping review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- BCI-activated electrical stimulation in children with perinatal stroke and hemiparesis: A pilot study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Grand challenges in pediatric stroke.Frontiers in stroke · 2023Article
- On the feasibility of simple brain-computer interface systems for enabling children with severe physical disabilities to explore independent movement.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- EEG hybrid brain-computer interfaces: A scoping review applying an existing hybrid-BCI taxonomy and considerations for pediatric applications.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChildren with severe motor impairment but intact cognition are deprived of fundamental human rights. Quadriplegic cerebral palsy is the most common scenario where rehabilitation options remain limited. Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) represent a potential solution, but pediatric populations have been neglected. Direct engagement of children and families could provide meaningful opportunities while informing program development. We describe a patient-centered, clinical, non-invasive pediatric BCI program.
methodsEligible children were identified within a population-based, tertiary care children's hospital. Criteria included 1) age six to 18 years, 2) severe physical disability (non-ambulatory, minimal hand use), 3) severely limited speech, and 4) evidence of grade 1 cognitive capacity. After initial screening for BCI competency, participants attended regular sessions, attempting commercially available and customized systems to play computer games, control devices, and attempt communication.
resultsWe report the first 10 participants (median 11 years, range 6-16, 60% male). Over 334 hours of participation, there were no serious adverse events. BCI training was well tolerated, with favorable feedback from children and parents. All but one participant demonstrated the ability to perform BCI tasks. The majority performed well, using motor imagery based tasks for games and entertainment. Difficulties were most significant using P300, visual evoked potential based paradigms where maintenance of attention was challenging. Children and families expressed interest in continuing and informing program development.
conclusionsPatient-centered clinical BCI programs are feasible for children with severe disabilities. Carefully selected participants can often learn quickly to perform meaningful tasks on readily available systems. Patient and family motivation and engagement appear high.
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.