ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2024
Brain-computer interfaces and human factors: the role of language and cultural differences-Still a missing gap?
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving motor imagery decoding methods for an EEG-based mobile brain-computer interface in the context of the 2024 Cybathlon.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Informed consent competency assessment for brain-computer interface clinical research and application in psychiatric disorders: A systematic review.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- Disorders of Consciousness, Language and Communication Following Severe Brain Injury.Psychologica Belgica · 2025Review
- Exploring individual biases in BCI research and users: Does gender matter?Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Enhancing Deep-Learning Classification for Remote Motor Imagery Rehabilitation Using Multi-Subject Transfer Learning in IoT Environment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The neurosociological paradigm of the metaverse.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) aim at the non-invasive investigation of brain activity for supporting communication and interaction of the users with their environment by means of brain-machine assisted technologies. Despite technological progress and promising research aimed at understanding the influence of human factors on BCI effectiveness, some topics still remain unexplored. The aim of this article is to discuss why it is important to consider the language of the user, its embodied grounding in perception, action and emotions, and its interaction with cultural differences in information processing in future BCI research. Based on evidence from recent studies, it is proposed that detection of language abilities and language training are two main topics of enquiry of future BCI studies to extend communication among vulnerable and healthy BCI users from bench to bedside and real world applications. In addition, cultural differences shape perception, actions, cognition, language and emotions subjectively, behaviorally as well as neuronally. Therefore, BCI applications should consider cultural differences in information processing to develop culture- and language-sensitive BCI applications for different user groups and BCIs, and investigate the linguistic and cultural contexts in which the BCI will be used.
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.