Cited by 171EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Long-term independent brain-computer interface home use improves quality of life of a patient in the locked-in state: A case study

Holz, Elisa Mira, Botrel, Loic, Kaufmann, Tobias, Kübler, Andrea·2015·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objective Despite intense brain-computer interface (BCI) research for >2 decades, BCIs have hardly been established at patients' homes. The current study aimed at demonstrating expert independent BCI home use by a patient in the locked-in state and the effect it has on quality of life.Design In this case study, the P300 BCI-controlled application Brain Painting was facilitated and installed at the patient's home. Family and caregivers were trained in setting up the BCI system. After every BCI session, the end user indicated subjective level of control, loss of control, level of exhaustion, satisfaction, frustration, and enjoyment. To monitor BCI home use, evaluation data of every session were automatically sent and stored on a remote server. Satisfaction with the BCI as an assistive device and subjective workload was indicated by the patient. In accordance with the user-centered design, usability of the BCI was evaluated in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. The influence of the BCI on quality of life of the end user was assessed.Setting At the patient's home.Participant A 73-year-old patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the locked-in state.Interventions Not applicable.Main outcome measure The BCI has been used by the patient independent of experts for >14 months. The patient painted in about 200 BCI sessions (1-3 times per week) with a mean painting duration of 81.86 minutes (SD=52.15, maximum: 230.41). BCI improved quality of life of the patient.Results In most of the BCI sessions the end user's satisfaction was high (mean=7.4, SD=3.24; range, 0-10). Dissatisfaction occurred mostly because of technical problems at the beginning of the study or varying BCI control. The subjective workload was moderate (mean=40.61; range, 0-100). The end user was highy satisfied with all components of the BCI (mean 4.42-5.0; range, 1-5). A perfect match between the user and the BCI technology was achieved (mean: 4.8; range, 1-5). Brain Painting had a positive impact on the patient's life on all three dimensions: competence (1.5), adaptability (2.17) and self-esteem (1.5); (range: -3 = maximum negative impact; 3 maximum positive impact). The patient had her first public art exhibition in July 2013; future exhibitions are in preparation.Conclusions Independent BCI home use is possible with high satisfaction for the end user. The BCI indeed positively influenced quality of life of the patient and supports social inclusion. Results demonstrate that visual P300 BCIs can be valuable for patients in the locked-in state even if other means of communication are still available (eye tracker).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.03.035

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It may be hard to obtain sufficiently large patient populations for concrete and statistically significant conclusions.

    “Additionally, it is apparent from previous work that access to sufficiently large patient populations for concrete and statistically significant conclusions may be difficult to obtain (1–5, 8, 11, 29, 39).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holz, E. M., Botrel, L., Kaufmann, T., & Kübler, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Holz, Elisa Mira
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
96
Issue
3
Pages
S16-S26
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2043562489
Cited by
171
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 4
FWCI
12.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
brain-computer interface, locked-in state, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, P300, assistive technology, quality of life, user satisfaction, perceived workload, usability evaluation, user-centered design, caregiver education, independent control, self-esteem, competence, adaptability
MeSH terms
Aged, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Paintings, Quality of Life, User-Computer Interface, Patient Satisfaction, Brain-Computer Interfaces

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review