Cited by 344EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyEmotion and Mood Recognition

BCI demographics: how many (and what kinds of) people can use an SSVEP BCI?

Allison, Brendan, Luth, Thorsten, Valbuena, Diana, Teymourian, Amir, Volosyak, Ivan, Graser, Axel·2010·IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

Abstract

Brain-computer interface (BCI) systems enable communication without movement. It is unclear why some BCI approaches or parameters are less effective with some users. This study elucidates BCI demographics by exploring correlations among BCI performance, personal preferences, and different subject factors such as age or gender. Results showed that most people, despite having no prior BCI experience, could use the Bremen SSVEP BCI system in a very noisy field setting. Performance tended to be better in both young and female subjects. Most subjects stated that they did not consider the flickering stimuli annoying and would use or recommend this BCI system. These and other demographic analyses may help identify the best BCI for each user.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tnsre.2009.2039495

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • General concerns about non-universal usability, robustness, and the role of training raised by able-bodied user studies are even more pressing with regard to end-user populations.

    “As a result, the general concerns about the non-universal usability, robustness, and, especially, the role of training raised by able-bodied user studies [3–7] are even more pressing with regard to end-user populations.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Allison, B., Luth, T., Valbuena, D., Teymourian, A., Volosyak, I., & Graser, A.
Affiliations
  • Graz University of Technology (AT)
  • University of Bremen (DE)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
Published
2010-04
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
107-116
ISSN
  • 1534-4320 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0210
OpenAlex
W2137237725
Cited by
344
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 22
FWCI
17.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
  • Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
brain-computer interface, steady-state visual evoked potentials, BCI usability, user demographics, age differences, gender differences, user preferences
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aging, Brain, Communication, Communication Aids for Disabled, Communication Devices for People with Disabilities, Computer Literacy, Demography, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Middle Aged, Photic Stimulation, Sex Characteristics, Software, User-Computer Interface, Young Adult

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