Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38079202›Full record

ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2023

A Brain Computer Interface Neuromodulatory Device for Stroke Rehabilitation: Iterative User-Centered Design Approach.

Gemma Alder, Denise Taylor, Usman Rashid, Sharon Olsen, Thonia Brooks, Gareth Terry, Imran Khan Niazi, Nada Signal

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Brain-Computer Interfaces for Stroke Motor Rehabilitation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  5. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Gemma AlderRehabilitation Innovation Centre, Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8833-0375
Denise TaylorRehabilitation Innovation Centre, Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0955-5702
Usman RashidRehabilitation Innovation Centre, Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1109-5493
Sharon OlsenRehabilitation Innovation Centre, Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7453-9127
Thonia BrooksRehabilitation Innovation Centre, Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3984-6413
Gareth TerryRehabilitation Innovation Centre, Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6377-6194
Imran Khan NiaziRehabilitation Innovation Centre, Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8752-7224
Nada SignalRehabilitation Innovation Centre, Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9595-0532
Auckland University of Technology · NZNew Zealand College of Chiropractic · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRehabilitation technologies for people with stroke are rapidly evolving. These technologies have the potential to support higher volumes of rehabilitation to improve outcomes for people with stroke. Despite growing evidence of their efficacy, there is a lack of uptake and sustained use in stroke rehabilitation and a call for user-centered design approaches during technology design and development. This study focuses on a novel rehabilitation technology called exciteBCI, a complex neuromodulatory wearable technology in the prototype stage that augments locomotor rehabilitation for people with stroke. The exciteBCI consists of a brain computer interface, a muscle electrical stimulator, and a mobile app.

objectiveThis study presents the evaluation phase of an iterative user-centered design approach supported by a qualitative descriptive methodology that sought to (1) explore users' perspectives and experiences of exciteBCI and how well it fits with rehabilitation, and (2) facilitate modifications to exciteBCI design features.

methodsThe iterative usability evaluation of exciteBCI was conducted in 2 phases. Phase 1 consisted of 3 sprint cycles consisting of single usability sessions with people with stroke (n=4) and physiotherapists (n=4). During their interactions with exciteBCI, participants used a "think-aloud" approach, followed by a semistructured interview. At the end of each sprint cycle, device requirements were gathered and the device was modified in preparation for the next cycle. Phase 2 focused on a "near-live" approach in which 2 people with stroke and 1 physiotherapist participated in a 3-week program of rehabilitation augmented by exciteBCI (n=3). Participants completed a semistructured interview at the end of the program. Data were analyzed from both phases using conventional content analysis.

resultsOverall, participants perceived and experienced exciteBCI positively, while providing guidance for iterative changes. Five interrelated themes were identified from the data: (1) "This is rehab" illustrated that participants viewed exciteBCI as having a good fit with rehabilitation practice; (2) "Getting the most out of rehab" highlighted that exciteBCI was perceived as a means to enhance rehabilitation through increased engagement and challenge; (3) "It is a tool not a therapist," revealed views that the technology could either enhance or disrupt the therapeutic relationship; and (4) "Weighing up the benefits versus the burden" and (5) "Don't make me look different" emphasized important design considerations related to device set-up, use, and social acceptability.

conclusionsThis study offers several important findings that can inform the design and implementation of rehabilitation technologies. These include (1) the design of rehabilitation technology should support the therapeutic relationship between the patient and therapist, (2) social acceptability is a design priority in rehabilitation technology but its importance varies depending on the use context, and (3) there is value in using design research methods that support understanding usability in the context of sustained use.

Indexed as

BCIbrain computer interfacemobile appnear liverehabilitation technologysemistructured interviewsstrokethink-alouduser-centered designwearable technology

Identifiers

PMID38079202
PMCPMC10750233
OpenAlexW4387108831

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.