Cited by 323EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

The influence of psychological state and motivation on brain-computer interface performance in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - a longitudinal study

Open access
Nijboer·2010·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Abstract

The current study investigated the effects of psychological well-being measured as quality of life (QoL), depression, current mood and motivation on brain-computer interface (BCI) performance in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Six participants with most advanced ALS were trained either for a block of 20 sessions with a BCI based on sensorimotor rhythms (SMR) or a block of 10 sessions with a BCI based on event-related potentials, or both. Questionnaires assessed QoL and severity of depressive symptoms before each training block and mood and motivation before each training session. The SMR-BCI required more training than the P300-BCI. The information transfer rate was higher with the P300-BCI (3.25 bits/min) than with the SMR-BCI (1.16 bits/min). Mood and motivation were related to the number of BCI sessions. Motivational factors, specifically challenge and mastery confidence, were positively related to BCI performance (controlled for the number of sessions) in tow participants, while incompetence fear was negatively related with performance in one participant. BCI performance was not related to motivational factors in three other participants nor to mood in any of the six participants. We conclude that motivational factors may be related to BCI performance in individual subjects and suggest that motivational factors and well-being should be assessed in standard BCI protocols. We also recommend using P300-based BCI as first choice in severely paralyzed patients who present with a P300 evoked potential.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnins.2010.00055

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • For each individual, the performance can vary day by day due to many factors, such as the daily mental status of each subject, slight alterations in electrode positions, the time of day during which subjects attend the experimental session, among other reasons.

    “For each individual, the performance can vary day by day due to many factors, such as the daily mental status of each subject, slight alterations in electrode positions, the time of day during which subjects attend the experimental session, among other reasons33.”

    From Noninvasive Electroencephalogram Based Control of a Robotic Arm for Reach and Grasp Tasks (2016) · cites this paper as [33]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Neumann N. (2001). Gehirn-Computer-Kommunikation: Einflussfaktoren der Selbstregulation langsamer kortikaler Hirnpotentiale. Unpublished Dissertation, Eberhard-Karlsuniversität Tübingen, Tübingen.
  2. Niedermeyer E. (2004). “The normal EEG of the waking adult,” in Electroencephalography: Basic Principles, Clinical Applications and Related Fields, 5th Edn, eds Niedermeyer E. Lopes da Silva F. H. (Baltimore: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins), 149– 173
  3. Tangermann M. W. Krauledat M. Grzeska K. Sagebaum M. Blankertz B. Vidaurre C. Blankertz B. Müller K.-R. (2009). “Playing pinball with non-invasive BCI,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 21 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 1641– 1648

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nijboer
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2010
Volume
4
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2105953877
Cited by
323
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 26
FWCI
14.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB000856)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD030146)
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, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, P300, sensorimotor rhythm, motivation, mood, depression, quality of life, information transfer rate, augmentative and alternative communication

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