ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2023
Can vibrotactile stimulation and tDCS help inefficient BCI users?
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- iTBS on RDLPFC improves performance of motor imagery: a brain-computer interface study combining EEG and fNIRS.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Individualized brain-computer interface for people with disabilities: a review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- Quantifying and evaluating motor imagery ability using EEG microstates in MI-BCI training.Experimental brain research · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain-computer interface (BCI) has helped people by allowing them to control a computer or machine through brain activity without actual body movement. Despite this advantage, BCI cannot be used widely because some people cannot achieve controllable performance. To solve this problem, researchers have proposed stimulation methods to modulate relevant brain activity to improve BCI performance. However, multiple studies have reported mixed results following stimulation, and the comparative study of different stimulation modalities has been overlooked. Accordingly, this study was designed to compare vibrotactile stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation's (tDCS) effects on brain activity modulation and motor imagery BCI performance among inefficient BCI users. We recruited 44 subjects and divided them into sham, vibrotactile stimulation, and tDCS groups, and low performers were selected from each stimulation group. We found that the latter's BCI performance in the vibrotactile stimulation group increased significantly by 9.13% (p < 0.01), and while the tDCS group subjects' performance increased by 5.13%, it was not significant. In contrast, sham group subjects showed no increased performance. In addition to BCI performance, pre-stimulus alpha band power and the phase locking values (PLVs) averaged over sensory motor areas showed significant increases in low performers following stimulation in the vibrotactile stimulation and tDCS groups, while sham stimulation group subjects and high performers showed no significant stimulation effects across all groups. Our findings suggest that stimulation effects may differ depending upon BCI efficiency, and inefficient BCI users have greater plasticity than efficient BCI users.
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.