Cited by 85EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyTactile and Sensory Interactions

Clinical evaluation of BrainTree, a motor imagery hybrid BCI speller

Open access
Perdikis, S, Leeb, R, Williamson, J, Ramsay, A, Tavella, M, Desideri, L, Hoogerwerf, E-J, Al-Khodairy, A +2 more·2014·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: While brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for communication have reached considerable technical maturity, there is still a great need for state-of-the-art evaluation by the end-users outside laboratory environments. To achieve this primary objective, it is necessary to augment a BCI with a series of components that allow end-users to type text effectively. APPROACH: This work presents the clinical evaluation of a motor imagery (MI) BCI text-speller, called BrainTree, by six severely disabled end-users and ten able-bodied users. Additionally, we define a generic model of code-based BCI applications, which serves as an analytical tool for evaluation and design. MAIN RESULTS: We show that all users achieved remarkable usability and efficiency outcomes in spelling. Furthermore, our model-based analysis highlights the added value of human-computer interaction techniques and hybrid BCI error-handling mechanisms, and reveals the effects of BCI performances on usability and efficiency in code-based applications. SIGNIFICANCE: This study demonstrates the usability potential of code-based MI spellers, with BrainTree being the first to be evaluated by a substantial number of end-users, establishing them as a viable, competitive alternative to other popular BCI spellers. Another major outcome of our model-based analysis is the derivation of a 80% minimum command accuracy requirement for successful code-based application control, revising upwards previous estimates attempted in the literature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1741-2560/11/3/036003

Cites

43 of 43 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perdikis, S., Leeb, R., Williamson, J., Ramsay, A., Tavella, M., Desideri, L., Hoogerwerf, E.-J., Al-Khodairy, A., Murray-Smith, R., & Millán, J. D. R.
Affiliations
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • AIAS Bologna (IT)
  • Clinique Romande de Réadaptation (CH)
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2014-04-16
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
036003
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W1989664338
Cited by
85
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 4
FWCI
5.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
brain-computer interface, motor imagery, hybrid BCI, Braintree, severely disabled users, usability, model-based analysis, error handling, augmentative and alternative communication
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Brain Mapping, Communication Devices for People with Disabilities, Communication Aids for Disabled, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Imagination, Language, Male, Motor Cortex, Movement, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Software, User-Computer Interface, Reproducibility of Results, Evoked Potentials, Motor, 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