ArticlePloS one2025
Towards developing brain-computer interfaces for people with Multiple Sclerosis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Individualized brain-computer interface for people with disabilities: a review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- Current status and future prospects of brain-computer interfaces in the field of neurological disease rehabilitation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Review
- Toward Brain-Computer Interface motor rehabilitation for people with Multiple Sclerosis.Frontiers in medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple Sclerosis (MS) can be a severely disabling condition that leads to various neurological symptoms. A Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) may substitute some lost function; however, there is a lack of BCI research in people with MS. Present BCI designs have also overlooked the unique pathological changes associated with MS and have not considered needs of users within their home environments. To progress this research area effectively and efficiently, we aimed to evaluate user needs and assess the feasibility and user-centric requirements of a BCI for people with MS. We hypothesised that (i) people with MS would be interested in adopting BCI technology and (ii) those with reduced independence would prefer a higher-performing invasive BCI.
methodsWe conducted an online survey of people with MS to describe user preferences and establish the initial steps of user-centred design. The survey aimed to understand their interest in BCI applications, bionic applications, device preferences, and development considerations and related these to symptoms and assistance needs.
resultsWe demonstrated widespread interest for BCI applications in all stages of MS, with a preference for a non-invasive (n = 12) or minimally invasive (n = 15) BCI over carer assistance (n = 6). Descriptive analysis indicated that level of independence did not influence preference towards the higher performing but highly invasive BCI.
conclusionsThe needs of end users reported in this study are crucial for efficient development of BCI systems that can be effectively translated into the home environment. Considering the potential to enhance independence and quality of life for people living with MS, the results emphasise the importance of user-centred design for future advancement of BCIs that account for the unique pathological changes associated with MS.
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.