Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42077635›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025

Exploring individual biases in BCI research and users: Does gender matter?

Cornelia Herbert, Viviana Ramos Acuna, Raphael R K Kneipp, Nina I Kapfer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Cornelia HerbertApplied Emotion and Motivation Psychology, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Viviana Ramos AcunaApplied Emotion and Motivation Psychology, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Raphael R K KneippApplied Emotion and Motivation Psychology, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Nina I KapferApplied Emotion and Motivation Psychology, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) is an interdisciplinary research field characterized by rapid technological advances and collaborative efforts to develop user-friendly, adaptive devices that enable healthy and non-responsive users to communicate and interact with their environment through brain signals elicited by specific instructions or tasks. However, research often shows gender bias, especially in scientific disciplines with strong technological, medical, or social foundations. Gender biases have been found among scientists conducting and publishing research. They may also exist among examiners and study participants. Research question and methods: This study investigates whether gender biases are present in BCI research, particularly in the distribution of women and men across editorial boards and authorship of studies focusing on psychological human factors that influence BCI performance and usability. We systematically analyzed the gender distribution in neuroscientific journals that accept BCI research or have a strong focus on BCI, reviewed their editorial boards, analyzed BCI publications -including those related to psychological human factors-and examined gender biases among study participants. Additionally, we reviewed EEG studies investigating sex- or gender-related differences in EEG signals relevant to BCI research. Results: We observed significant differences in the representation of women and men among editorial board members and BCI authors, including first-, co-, and last-authorship. Similarly, there were differences in the gender distribution of participants in BCI studies. Moreover, the literature review suggests potential differences in brain signals between women and men within the studied samples. The impact of these differences on performance in BCIs, such as motor-imagery SMR-BCIs, SSVEP-BCIs, and P300-BCIs, as well as training methods and BCI usability, still needs to be explored. Conclusion: Our findings emphasize the importance of increasing awareness of gender-, sex-, and user-related factors in BCI research. In line with recent perspectives that highlight the need to address gender biases and individual differences in the language of the user, their motivation or cultural background, future BCI research should focus on systematically examining gender and sex differences. This will help promote gender equality in BCI research and lead to a better understanding of users' needs, preferences, and individual characteristics.

Indexed as

Brain-Computer Interfacescareer perceptionselectroencephalographygender biasliterature reviewsex differencesSTEAMwomen in science

Identifiers

PMID42077635
PMCPMC13133739

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.