MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409293250 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2025.1456692

BCI move: exploring pediatric BCI-controlled power mobility

2025· article· en· W4409293250 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leah Hammond, Danette Rowley, Corinne Tuck, Erica D. Floreani, Amy Wieler, Vella Shin-Hyung Kim, Hosein Bahari, John Andersen, Adam Kirton, Eli Kinney‐Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceComputer sciencePower (physics)PsychologyElectroencephalographyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Children and young people (CYP) with severe physical disabilities often experience barriers to independent mobility, placing them at risk for developmental impairments and restricting their independence and participation. Pilot work suggests that brain-computer interface (BCIs) could enable powered mobility control for children with motor disabilities. We explored how severely disabled CYP could use BCI to achieve individualized, functional power mobility goals and acquire power mobility skills. We also explored the practicality of pediatric BCI-enabled power mobility. Methods Nine CYP aged 7-17 years with severe physical disabilities and their caregivers participated in up to 12 BCI-enabled power mobility training sessions focused on a personalized power mobility goal. Goal achievement was assessed using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS). The Assessment for Learning Powered Mobility (ALP) was used to measure session-by-session power mobility skill acquisition. BCI set-up and calibration metrics, perceived workload, and participant engagement were also reported. Results Significant improvements in COPM performance (Z = −2.869, adjusted p = 0.012) and satisfaction scores (Z = −2.809, adjusted p = 0.015) and GAS T scores (Z = −2.805, p = 0.005) were observed following the intervention. ALP scores displayed a small but significant increase over time (R2 = 0.07–0.19; adjusted p = <0.001–0.039), with 7/9 participants achieving increased overall ALP scores following the intervention. Setup and calibration times were practical although calibration consistency was highly variable. Participants reported moderate workload with no significant change over time (R2 = 0.00–0.13; adjusted p = 0.006–1.000), although there was a trend towards increased frustration over time(R2 = 0.13; adjusted p = 0.006). Discussion Participants were highly engaged throughout the intervention. BCI-enabled power mobility appears to help CYP with severe physical disabilities achieve personalized power mobility goals and acquire power mobility skills. BCI-enabled power mobility training also appears to be practical, but BCI performance optimization and skill acquisition may be needed to translate this technology into clinical use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207