ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
Visual ERP-based brain-computer interface use with severe physical, speech and eye movement impairments: case studies.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndividuals who experience severe speech and physical impairment face significant challenges in communication and daily interaction. Visual brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) offer a potential assistive solution, but their usability is limited when facing restrictions in eye motor control, gaze redirection and fixation. This study investigates the feasibility of a gaze-independent visual oddball BCI for use as an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device in the presence of limited eye motor control.
methodsSeven participants with varying degrees of eye motor control were recruited and their conditions were thoroughly assessed. Visual oddball BCI decoding accuracy was evaluated with multiple decoders in three visuospatial attention (VSA) conditions: overt VSA, with fixation cued on the target, covert VSA, with fixation cued on the center of the screen, and free VSA without gaze cue.
resultscovert VSA with central fixation leads to decreased accuracy, whereas free VSA is comparable to overt VSA for some participants. Furthermore, cross-condition decoder training and evaluation suggests that training with overt VSA may improve performance in BCI users experiencing gaze control difficulties.
conclusionsThese findings highlight the need for adaptive decoding strategies and further validation in applied settings in the presence of gaze impairment.
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.