Trends in research participant categories and descriptions in abstracts from the International BCI Meeting series, 1999 to 2016.

IF 1.8 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Brain-Computer Interfaces Pub Date : 2019-01-01 Epub Date: 2019-08-01 DOI:10.1080/2326263x.2019.1643203
Brandon S Eddy, Sean C Garrett, Sneha Rajen, Betts Peters, Jack Wiedrick, Abigail O'Connor, Ashley Renda, Jane E Huggins, Melanie Fried-Oken
{"title":"Trends in research participant categories and descriptions in abstracts from the International BCI Meeting series, 1999 to 2016.","authors":"Brandon S Eddy, Sean C Garrett, Sneha Rajen, Betts Peters, Jack Wiedrick, Abigail O'Connor, Ashley Renda, Jane E Huggins, Melanie Fried-Oken","doi":"10.1080/2326263x.2019.1643203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Much brain-computer interface (BCI) research is intended to benefit people with disabilities (PWD), but inclusion of these individuals as study participants remains relatively rare. When participants with disabilities are included, they are described with a range of clinical and non-clinical terms with varying degrees of specificity, often leading to difficulty in interpreting or replicating results. This study examined trends in inclusion and description of study participants with disabilities across six International BCI Meetings from 1999 to 2016. Abstracts from each Meeting were analyzed by two trained independent reviewers. Results suggested a decline in participation by PWD across Meetings until the 2016 Meeting. Increased diagnostic specificity was noted at the 2013 and 2016 Meetings. Fifty-eight percent of the abstracts identified PWD as being the target beneficiaries of BCI research, though only twenty-two percent included participants with disabilities, suggesting evidence of a persistent translational gap. Participants with disabilities were most commonly described as having physical and/or communication impairments compared to impairments in other areas. Implementing participatory action research principles and user-centered design strategies continues to be necessary within BCI research to bridge the translational gap and facilitate use of BCI systems within functional environments for PWD.</p>","PeriodicalId":45112,"journal":{"name":"Brain-Computer Interfaces","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7540243/pdf/nihms-1535086.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain-Computer Interfaces","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2326263x.2019.1643203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Much brain-computer interface (BCI) research is intended to benefit people with disabilities (PWD), but inclusion of these individuals as study participants remains relatively rare. When participants with disabilities are included, they are described with a range of clinical and non-clinical terms with varying degrees of specificity, often leading to difficulty in interpreting or replicating results. This study examined trends in inclusion and description of study participants with disabilities across six International BCI Meetings from 1999 to 2016. Abstracts from each Meeting were analyzed by two trained independent reviewers. Results suggested a decline in participation by PWD across Meetings until the 2016 Meeting. Increased diagnostic specificity was noted at the 2013 and 2016 Meetings. Fifty-eight percent of the abstracts identified PWD as being the target beneficiaries of BCI research, though only twenty-two percent included participants with disabilities, suggesting evidence of a persistent translational gap. Participants with disabilities were most commonly described as having physical and/or communication impairments compared to impairments in other areas. Implementing participatory action research principles and user-centered design strategies continues to be necessary within BCI research to bridge the translational gap and facilitate use of BCI systems within functional environments for PWD.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

1999年至2016年国际BCI会议系列摘要中的研究参与者类别和描述趋势。
许多脑机接口(BCI)研究旨在造福残障人士(PWD),但将这些人纳入研究对象的情况仍然相对罕见。即使纳入了残障人士,也会用一系列临床和非临床术语对其进行描述,具体程度不一,往往导致难以解释或复制结果。本研究考察了1999年至2016年六次国际BCI会议中纳入和描述残疾研究参与者的趋势。每次会议的论文摘要均由两名经过培训的独立审稿人进行分析。结果表明,在2016年会议之前,残疾人在各次会议中的参与度有所下降。2013年和2016年会议的诊断特异性有所提高。58%的摘要指出残疾人是BCI研究的目标受益人,但只有22%的摘要包括残疾参与者,这表明存在持续的转化差距。与其他方面的障碍相比,残疾参与者最常被描述为有身体和/或交流障碍。在BCI研究中实施参与式行动研究原则和以用户为中心的设计策略仍然是必要的,以弥合转化差距并促进残疾人在功能环境中使用BCI系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
9.50%
发文量
14
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信