A systematic review of research on augmentative and alternative communication brain-computer interface systems for individuals with disabilities

被引:11
作者
Peters, Betts [1 ,2 ]
Eddy, Brandon [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Galvin-McLaughlin, Deirdre [1 ,2 ]
Betz, Gail [4 ]
Oken, Barry [1 ,5 ]
Fried-Oken, Melanie [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Consortium Accessible Multimodal Brain Body Interf, Portland, OR 97239 USA
[2] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Inst Dev & Disabil, Dept Pediat, REKNEW Projects, Portland, OR 97239 USA
[3] Portland State Univ, Speech & Hearing Sci Dept, Portland, OR USA
[4] Univ Maryland, Hlth Sci & Human Serv Lib, Baltimore, MD USA
[5] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Dept Neurol, Portland, OR USA
来源
FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE | 2022年 / 16卷
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
augmentative and alternative communication (AAC); brain-computer interface (BCI); locked-in syndrome (LIS); dysarthria; tetraplegia; systematic review; AMYOTROPHIC-LATERAL-SCLEROSIS; FUNCTIONAL RATING-SCALE; LOCKED-IN PATIENT; BCI; PEOPLE; ALS; POTENTIALS; CLASSIFICATIONS; DEVICE;
D O I
10.3389/fnhum.2022.952380
中图分类号
Q189 [神经科学];
学科分类号
071006 ;
摘要
Augmentative and alternative communication brain-computer interface (AAC-BCI) systems are intended to offer communication access to people with severe speech and physical impairment (SSPI) without requiring volitional movement. As the field moves toward clinical implementation of AAC-BCI systems, research involving participants with SSPI is essential. Research has demonstrated variability in AAC-BCI system performance across users, and mixed results for comparisons of performance for users with and without disabilities. The aims of this systematic review were to (1) describe study, system, and participant characteristics reported in BCI research, (2) summarize the communication task performance of participants with disabilities using AAC-BCI systems, and (3) explore any differences in performance for participants with and without disabilities. Electronic databases were searched in May, 2018, and March, 2021, identifying 6065 records, of which 73 met inclusion criteria. Non-experimental study designs were common and sample sizes were typically small, with approximately half of studies involving five or fewer participants with disabilities. There was considerable variability in participant characteristics, and in how those characteristics were reported. Over 60% of studies reported an average selection accuracy & LE;70% for participants with disabilities in at least one tested condition. However, some studies excluded participants who did not reach a specific system performance criterion, and others did not state whether any participants were excluded based on performance. Twenty-nine studies included participants both with and without disabilities, but few reported statistical analyses comparing performance between the two groups. Results suggest that AAC-BCI systems show promise for supporting communication for people with SSPI, but they remain ineffective for some individuals. The lack of standards in reporting outcome measures makes it difficult to synthesize data across studies. Further research is needed to demonstrate efficacy of AAC-BCI systems for people who experience SSPI of varying etiologies and severity levels, and these individuals should be included in system design and testing. Consensus in terminology and consistent participant, protocol, and performance description will facilitate the exploration of user and system characteristics that positively or negatively affect AAC-BCI use, and support innovations that will make this technology more useful to a broader group of people.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 107 条
  • [1] Noninvasive brain-computer interfaces for augmentative and alternative communication
    Akcakaya, Murat
    Peters, Betts
    Moghadamfalahi, Mohammad
    Mooney, Aimee R.
    Orhan, Umut
    Oken, Barry
    Erdogmus, Deniz
    Fried-Oken, Melanie
    [J]. 1600, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., United States (07): : 31 - 49
  • [2] Akers J., 2009, Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
  • [3] Alamdari N, 2016, INT CONF ELECTRO INF, P345, DOI 10.1109/EIT.2016.7535263
  • [4] Allison BZ, 2010, HUM-COMPUT INT-SPRIN, P35, DOI 10.1007/978-1-84996-272-8_3
  • [5] Updating BCI paradigms: Why to design in terms of the user?
    Alonso-Valerdi, L. M.
    Mercado-Garcia, V. R.
    [J]. 2021 10TH INTERNATIONAL IEEE/EMBS CONFERENCE ON NEURAL ENGINEERING (NER), 2021, : 710 - 713
  • [6] Item response theory analysis of the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised in the Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS Clinical Trials Database
    Bacci, Elizabeth D.
    Staniewska, Dorota
    Coyne, Karin S.
    Boyer, Stacey
    White, Leigh Ann
    Zach, Neta
    Cedarbaum, Jesse M.
    [J]. AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS AND FRONTOTEMPORAL DEGENERATION, 2016, 17 (3-4) : 157 - 167
  • [7] BAUER G, 1979, J NEUROL, V221, P77, DOI 10.1007/BF00313105
  • [8] The cognitive profile of ALS: a systematic review and meta-analysis update
    Beeldman, Emma
    Raaphorst, Joost
    Twennaar, Michelle Klein
    de Visser, Marianne
    Schmand, Ben A.
    de Haan, Rob J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY, 2016, 87 (06) : 611 - 619
  • [9] Billinger Martin., 2013, Towards Practical Brain-Computer Interfaces, P333, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-29746-5_17
  • [10] Neurophysiological predictor of SMR-based BCI performance
    Blankertz, Benjamin
    Sannelli, Claudia
    Haider, Sebastian
    Hammer, Eva M.
    Kuebler, Andrea
    Mueller, Klaus-Robert
    Curio, Gabriel
    Dickhaus, Thorsten
    [J]. NEUROIMAGE, 2010, 51 (04) : 1303 - 1309