ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Comparison of Point-and-Click Performance Between the Brainfingers BCI and the Mouse.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study quantitatively evaluates the performance of a non-invasive hybrid brain-computer interface (BCI) compared to a conventional mouse in pointing (point-and-click) tasks. A commercial wearable BCI (Brainfingers), based on electromyography (EMG) and electrooculography (EOG) signals with low-level electroencephalography (EEG) components, was assessed against a Microsoft Optical Mouse using ISO/TS 9241-411-based one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) target acquisition tasks. Pointer coordinates were recorded and analyzed using Fitts' law metrics. A total of 48 non-disabled participants completed the experiments. The results reveal significant performance differences between the two input devices. The BCI device exhibits substantially lower performance than the mouse across the reported Fitts' law measures. Mean throughput was 0.35 bits/s for the BCI and 6.03 bits/s for the mouse in the 1D tests and 0.43 bits/s for the BCI and 5.17 bits/s for the mouse in the 2D tests. Despite the BCI's low performance and although the present experiments involved non-disabled participants, the findings, considered alongside the prior literature on Brainfingers and non-invasive BCIs for computer access, suggest that the device may still have assistive technology value for users with severe motor impairments.
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.