Brain-Computer Interface Users Speak Up: The Virtual Users' Forum at the 2013 International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting
Open accessAbstract
Over 300 researchers gathered at the 2013 International Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) Meeting to discuss current practice and future goals for BCI research and development. The authors organized the Virtual Users’ Forum at the meeting to provide the BCI community with feedback from users. We report on the Virtual Users’ Forum, including initial results from ongoing research being conducted by two BCI groups. Online surveys and in-person interviews were used to solicit feedback from people with disabilities who are expert and novice BCI users. For the Virtual Users’ Forum, their responses were organized into four major themes: current (non-BCI) communication methods, experiences with BCI research, challenges of current BCIs, and future BCI developments. Two authors with severe disabilities gave presentations during the Virtual Users’ Forum, and their comments are integrated with the other results. While participants’ hopes for BCIs of the future remain high, their comments about available systems mirror those made by consumers about conventional assistive technology. They reflect concerns about reliability (e.g. typing accuracy/speed), utility (e.g. applications and the desire for real-time interactions), ease of use (e.g. portability and system setup), and support (e.g. technical support and caregiver training). People with disabilities, as target users of BCI systems, can provide valuable feedback and input on the development of BCI as an assistive technology. To this end, participatory action research (PAR) should be considered as a valuable methodology for future BCI research.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
People who have lost speech after severe paralysis rank faster, more accurate, and more natural communication among their most desired needs.
“Faster, more accurate, and more natural communication are among the most desired needs of people who have lost the ability to speak after severe paralysis2,38–40.”
From A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control (2023) · cites this paper as [2]
The Results (page unavailable) identify slow communication as the most common complaint among interviewees using AAC; participants also sought conversation at a natural pace and raised accuracy concerns. The Methods (page unavailable) describe people with severe speech and/or physical impairments, not specifically people who lost speech after severe paralysis. The paper does not rank all three qualities among that population’s most desired needs. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBeing able to use evolving technology to communicate with family and friends, participate in community and work, and engage in virtual social contexts can greatly expand access to meaningful interpersonal interactions and improve quality of life.
“The ability to interface with evolving technology to communicate with family and friends, facilitate community involvement and occupational participation, and engage in virtual, Internet-based social contexts (such as social media and metaverses) can vastly expand a person’s access to meaningful interpersonal interactions and ultimately improve their quality of life2,39.”
From A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control (2023) · cites this paper as [2]
The Results report that potential BCI users wanted face-to-face communication, email, and social networking; the Discussion links assistive technology to social interaction and employment and describes improved communication and quality of life as clinical goals. The paper concerns people with disabilities, however, and does not address metaverses or establish that these technologies vastly expand interpersonal interactions or improve quality of life. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLong and recurring training periods for speech neuroprostheses might discourage long-term use.
“As long and recurring training periods for speech neuroprostheses might discourage long-term use158,159, it is essential to develop decoders that are stable over time or can be quickly recalibrated102,104,105 to avoid dedicated and high-effort re-training periods inconveniencing users.”
From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [159]
The Results (page not available) report users’ concerns that BCI setup was time-consuming and training-intensive for caregivers, particularly with frequent staff turnover. The paper does not say that speech-neuroprosthesis users face long, recurring training periods or that such periods discourage long-term use. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Farwell, L. A., & Donchin, E. (1988) · Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/0013-4694(88)90149-6 · Cited by 3,228 · see citing works
What is participatory research?
Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-s · Cited by 2,560 · see citing works
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.2004.028662 · Cited by 2,420 · see citing works
Brain–Computer InterfacesPrinciples and Practice
Wolpaw, J. R., & Wolpaw, E. W. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388855.001.0001 · Cited by 1,114 · see citing works
Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice
Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (1995) · Cited by 992 · see citing works
Combining brain-computer interfaces and assistive technologies: state-of-the-art and challenges
Millán, J. D. R. (2010) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2010.00161 · Cited by 870 · see citing works
Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. J. (2004) · Cited by 498 · see citing works
A brain-computer interface for long-term independent home use
Sellers, E. W., Vaughan, T. M., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2010) · Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis · doi:10.3109/17482961003777470 · Cited by 400 · see citing works
A Wireless Brain-Machine Interface for Real-Time Speech Synthesis
Guenther, F. H., Brumberg, J. S., Wright, E. J., Nieto-Castanon, A., Tourville, J. A., Panko, M., Law, R., Siebert, S. A., Bartels, J. L., Andreasen, D. S., et al. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008218 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Huggins, J. E., Wren, P. A., & Gruis, K. L. (2011) · Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis · doi:10.3109/17482968.2011.572978 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
Self-citationBrain–Computer Interfaces: Something New under the Sun
Wolpaw, J. R., & Wolpaw, E. W. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388855.003.0001 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Berkshire encyclopedia of human-computer interaction
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-3146 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
A Brain-Computer Interface as Input Channel for a Standard Assistive Technology Software
Zickler, C., Riccio, A., Leotta, F., Hillian-Tress, S., Halder, S., Holz, E. M., Staiger-Sälzer, P., Hoogerwerf, E.-J., Desideri, L., Donatella Mattia, A., et al. (2011) · Clinical EEG and Neuroscience · doi:10.1177/155005941104200409 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
RSVP keyboard: An EEG based typing interface
Orhan, U., Hild, K. E., Deniz Erdogmus, B., Brian Roark, A., Oken, B., & Fried-Oken, M. B. (2012) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp.2012.6287966 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Self-citationLund, S. K., & Light, J. (2007) · Augmentative and Alternative Communication · doi:10.1080/02656730701189123 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Barriers to and mediators of brain–computer interface user acceptance: focus group findings
Blain‐Moraes, S., Schaff, R., Gruis, K. L., Huggins, J. E., & Wren, P. A. (2012) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2012.661082 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Self-citationNoninvasive Brain–Computer Interfaces for Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Akçakaya, M., Peters, B., Moghadamfalahi, M., Mooney, A. R., Orhan, U., Oken, B., Deniz Erdogmus, B., & Fried-Oken, M. B. (2014) · IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/rbme.2013.2295097 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Self-citationBrain–Computer Interface With Language Model–Electroencephalography Fusion for Locked-In Syndrome
Oken, B., Orhan, U., Brian Roark, A., Deniz Erdogmus, B., Fowler, A., Mooney, A. R., Peters, B., Miller, M., & Fried-Oken, M. B. (2013) · Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · doi:10.1177/1545968313516867 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Self-citationFager, S. K., Beukelman, D. R., Fried-Oken, M. B., Jakobs, T., & Baker, J. (2012) · Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/10400435.2011.648712 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Self-citationFeedback on AAC intervention from adults who are temporarily unable to speak
Fried-Oken, M. B., Howard, J., & Stewart, S. R. (1991) · Augmentative and Alternative Communication · doi:10.1080/07434619112331275673 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Self-citationBCI Applications for People with Disabilities: Defining User Needs and User Requirements
Zickler, C., Donna, V. D., Kaiser, V., Al-Khodairy, A., Kleih, S. C., Andrea, K., Malavasi, M., Donatella Mattia, A., Mongardi, S., Neuper, C., et al. (2009) · IOS Press eBooks · doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-042-1-185 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Offline analysis of context contribution to ERP-based typing BCI performance
Orhan, U., Deniz Erdogmus, B., Brian Roark, A., Oken, B., & Fried-Oken, M. B. (2013) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/10/6/066003 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Self-citationHochberg, L. R., & Anderson, K. D. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388855.003.0019 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Assistive technology from adapted equipment to inclusive environments : AAATE 2009
Aaate, & Emiliani, P. L. (2009) · IOS Press eBooks · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Brain-machine interfaces for real-time speech synthesis
Guenther, F. H., & Brumberg, J. S. (2011) · doi:10.1109/iembs.2011.6091326 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Orhan, U., Deniz Erdogmus, B., Brian Roark, A., Oken, B., Purwar, S., Hild, K. E., Fowler, A., & Fried-Oken, M. B. (2012) · Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) · doi:10.1109/embc.2012.6346471 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Self-citationVaughan, T. M., Sellers, E. W., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388855.003.0020 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Emiliani, P. L., Burzagli, L., Çomo, A., et al. (2009) · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Buhler, C., & Turner-Smith, A. R. (1999) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control
Metzger, S. L., Littlejohn, K. T., Silva, A. B., Moses, D. A., Seaton, M. P., Wang, R., Dougherty, M. E., Liu, J. R., Wu, P., Berger, M. A., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06443-4 · Cited by 522 · see citing works
Silva, A. B., Littlejohn, K. T., Liu, J. R., Moses, D. A., & Chang, E. F. (2024) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-024-00819-9 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
“As long and recurring training periods for speech neuroprostheses might discourage long-term use 158,159 , it is essential to develop decoders that are stable over time or can be quickly recalibrated 102,104,105 to avoid dedicated and high-effort re-training periods inconveniencing users.”
Heading for new shores! Overcoming pitfalls in BCI design
Chavarriaga, R., Fried-Oken, M., Kleih, S., Lotte, F., & Scherer, R. (2017) · Brain-Computer Interfaces · doi:10.1080/2326263x.2016.1263916 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Peters, B., Bieker, G., Heckman, S. M., Huggins, J. E., Wolf, C., Zeitlin, D., & Fried-Oken, M.
- Affiliations
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- New York State Department of Health (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Helen Hayes Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fried-Oken, Melanie
- Venue
- Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-03
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- S33-S37
- ISSN
- 0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4383178
- OpenAlex
- W2091540943
- Semantic Scholar
- d0491da1e6dd4dfb9f10240625b5462ffc6b2095
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 2.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (R13DC012744, 1R01DC009834, EB00856)
- U.S. Department of Education
- National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (H133G090005)
- 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, user feedback, people with disabilities, assistive technology, user experience, reliability, ease of use, caregiver education, participatory action research
- MeSH terms
- Communication Devices for People with Disabilities, Electroencephalography, Humans, Quality of Life, User-Computer Interface, 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
