Cited by 166EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Transferring brain-computer interfaces beyond the laboratory: Successful application control for motor-disabled users

Open access
Leeb, Robert, Perdikis, Serafeim, Tonin, Luca, Biasiucci, Andrea, Tavella, Michele, Creatura, Marco, Molina, Alberto, Al-Khodairy, Abdul +2 more·2013·Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

Abstract

Objectives Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are no longer only used by healthy participants under controlled conditions in laboratory environments, but also by patients and end-users, controlling applications in their homes or clinics, without the BCI experts around. But are the technology and the field mature enough for this? Especially the successful operation of applications - like text entry systems or assistive mobility devices such as tele-presence robots - requires a good level of BCI control. How much training is needed to achieve such a level? Is it possible to train naïve end-users in 10 days to successfully control such applications?Materials and methods In this work, we report our experiences of training 24 motor-disabled participants at rehabilitation clinics or at the end-users' homes, without BCI experts present. We also share the lessons that we have learned through transferring BCI technologies from the lab to the user's home or clinics.Results The most important outcome is that 50% of the participants achieved good BCI performance and could successfully control the applications (tele-presence robot and text-entry system). In the case of the tele-presence robot the participants achieved an average performance ratio of 0.87 (max. 0.97) and for the text entry application a mean of 0.93 (max. 1.0). The lessons learned and the gathered user feedback range from pure BCI problems (technical and handling), to common communication issues among the different people involved, and issues encountered while controlling the applications.Conclusion The points raised in this paper are very widely applicable and we anticipate that they might be faced similarly by other groups, if they move on to bringing the BCI technology to the end-user, to home environments and towards application prototype control.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.artmed.2013.08.004

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Works where users acquired BCI control, in able-bodied and end-user populations, do not report any learning metric over time.

    “Firstly, works where users acquired BCI control (able-bodied [3,25] and end-users [40,41,51,62,63]) do not report any learning metric over time.”
  • 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].”
  • The EEG-based MI BCI design previously developed in CNBI had already been shown to allow end-users to successfully operate a number of BCI prototypes.

    “The Brain Tweakers participation in the Cybathlon BCI race relied on the EEG-based MI BCI design previously developed in CNBI, which had already been shown to allow end-users to successfully operate a number of BCI prototypes [51].”
  • The authors' training apparatus has been very similar to the one applied in their previous work.

    “We denote that our training apparatus, which certainly falls under the category of “conventional” MI BCI training protocols relying on visual feedback training on top of initial machine calibration with spontaneous SMRs, has been very similar to the one we have applied in our previous work [51].”
  • Training with the BCI application rather than towards it had a profound impact for both application performances and subject learning.

    “Second, training with the BCI application rather than towards it—like in [51] and most other studies—had a profound impact, as shown in Fig 6, for both application performances and subject learning.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leeb, R., Perdikis, S., Tonin, L., Biasiucci, A., Tavella, M., Creatura, M., Molina, A., Al-Khodairy, A., Carlson, T., & Millán, J. D. R.
Affiliations
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • Clinique Romande de Réadaptation (CH)
Corresponding author
Leeb, Robert
Venue
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-10
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
121-132
ISSN
0933-3657 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1999296691
Cited by
166
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 4
FWCI
10.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European ICT programme project TOBI: Tools for Brain-Computer Interaction
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, motor impairment, assistive technology, end-user training, technology transfer, rehabilitation centers, user feedback, BCI performance
MeSH terms
Adult, Electroencephalography, Female, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Paralysis, 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