A Review of EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces as Access Pathways for Individuals with Severe Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroencephalography (EEG) is a non-invasive method for measuring brain activity and is a strong candidate for brain-computer interface (BCI) development. While BCIs can be used as a means of communication for individuals with severe disabilities, the majority of existing studies have reported BCI evaluations by able-bodied individuals. Considering the many differences in body functions and usage scenarios between individuals with disabilities and able-bodied individuals, involvement of the target population in BCI evaluation is necessary. In this review, 39 studies reporting EEG-oriented BCI assessment by individuals with disabilities were identified in the past decade. With respect to participant populations, a need for assessing BCI performance for the pediatric population with severe disabilities was identified as an important future direction. Acquiring a reliable communication pathway during early stages of development is crucial in avoiding learned helplessness in pediatric-onset disabilities. With respect to evaluation, augmenting traditional measures of system performance with those relating to contextual factors was recommended for realizing user-centered designs appropriate for integration in real-life. Considering indicators of user state and developing more effective training paradigms are recommended for future studies of BCI involving individuals with disabilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".