Cited by 111EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Brain-computer interface controlled gaming: Evaluation of usability by severely motor restricted end-users

Open access
Holz, Elisa Mira, Höhne, Johannes, Staiger-Sälzer, Pit, Tangermann, Michael, Kübler, Andrea·2013·Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

Abstract

Objective Connect-Four, a new sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) based brain-computer interface (BCI) gaming application, was evaluated by four severely motor restricted end-users; two were in the locked-in state and had unreliable eye-movement.Methods Following the user-centred approach, usability of the BCI prototype was evaluated in terms of effectiveness (accuracy), efficiency (information transfer rate (ITR) and subjective workload) and users' satisfaction.Results Online performance varied strongly across users and sessions (median accuracy (%) of end-users: A=.65; B=.60; C=.47; D=.77). Our results thus yielded low to medium effectiveness in three end-users and high effectiveness in one end-user. Consequently, ITR was low (0.05-1.44bits/min). Only two end-users were able to play the game in free-mode. Total workload was moderate but varied strongly across sessions. Main sources of workload were mental and temporal demand. Furthermore, frustration contributed to the subjective workload of two end-users. Nevertheless, most end-users accepted the BCI application well and rated satisfaction medium to high. Sources for dissatisfaction were (1) electrode gel and cap, (2) low effectiveness, (3) time-consuming adjustment and (4) not easy-to-use BCI equipment. All four end-users indicated ease of use as being one of the most important aspect of BCI.Conclusion Effectiveness and efficiency are lower as compared to applications using the event-related potential as input channel. Nevertheless, the SMR-BCI application was satisfactorily accepted by the end-users and two of four could imagine using the BCI application in their daily life. Thus, despite moderate effectiveness and efficiency BCIs might be an option when controlling an application for entertainment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.artmed.2013.08.001

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Mutual learning has been claimed mostly on the grounds of adequate and improved BCI classification accuracy or application performances.

    “Indeed, mutual learning has been claimed mostly on the grounds of adequate and improved BCI classification accuracy [25,27,30–35] or application performances [36,37].”
  • Evidence that co-adaptive MI BCIs might also be able to promote and increase the ability of users to voluntarily modulate their brain signals (subject learning) is scarce, most often indirect and rather inconclusive.

    “Evidence that co-adaptive MI BCIs might also be able to promote and increase the ability of the users to voluntary modulate their brain signals (subject learning) is, in fact, scarce, most often indirect and rather inconclusive.”
  • Other training studies claim learnability in BCIs only on the grounds of improved online classification accuracy or application performances.

    “Secondly, other training studies claim learnability in BCIs only on the grounds of improved online classification accuracy [9,27,30,31,33,35,51] or application performances [36,37].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holz, E. M., Höhne, J., Staiger-Sälzer, P., Tangermann, M., & Kübler, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Holz, Elisa Mira
Venue
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-10
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
111-120
ISSN
0933-3657 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077189121
Cited by
111
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 2
FWCI
8.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European ICT Programme (FP7-224631)
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 › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
brain-computer interface, sensorimotor rhythm, usability evaluation, locked-in syndrome, information transfer rate, perceived workload, user satisfaction, Connect Four, event-related potentials, assistive technology
MeSH terms
Humans, Middle Aged, Paralysis, Severity of Illness Index, 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