ArticleFrontiers in neurorobotics2023
Continuous versus discrete robotic feedback for brain-computer interfaces aimed for neurorehabilitation.
Article in Frontiers in neurorobotics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring Imagined Movement for Brain-Computer Interface Control: An fNIRS and EEG Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- The ReHand-BCI trial: a randomized controlled trial of a brain-computer interface for upper extremity stroke neurorehabilitation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) can allow control of external devices using motor imagery (MI) decoded from electroencephalography (EEG). Although BCI have a wide range of applications including neurorehabilitation, the low spatial resolution of EEG, coupled to the variability of cortical activations during MI, make control of BCI based on EEG a challenging task. Methods: An assessment of BCI control with different feedback timing strategies was performed. Two different feedback timing strategies were compared, comprised by passive hand movement provided by a robotic hand orthosis. One of the timing strategies, the continuous, involved the partial movement of the robot immediately after the recognition of each time segment in which hand MI was performed. The other feedback, the discrete, was comprised by the entire movement of the robot after the processing of the complete MI period. Eighteen healthy participants performed two sessions of BCI training and testing, one with each feedback. Results: Significantly higher BCI performance (65.4 ± 17.9% with the continuous and 62.1 ± 18.6% with the discrete feedback) and pronounced bilateral alpha and ipsilateral beta cortical activations were observed with the continuous feedback. Discussion: It was hypothesized that these effects, although heterogenous across participants, were caused by the enhancement of attentional and closed-loop somatosensory processes. This is important, since a continuous feedback timing could increase the number of BCI users that can control a MI-based system or enhance cortical activations associated with neuroplasticity, important for neurorehabilitation applications.
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.