Skip to main content

Table 1 Studies with potential users employing quantitative research methods

From: Using brain-computer interfaces: a scoping review of studies employing social research methods

Publication Interest in BCIs User preferences regarding BCI functions/features Expectations towards BCI technology Other aspects
Ahn et al., 2014 [12]   active and reactive BCIs   high potential of BCI; most potential fields: rehabilitation, prosthesis, gaming
Blabe et al., 2015 [100]   communication ease of use, high performance, little maintenance, decent aesthetics  
Collinger et al., 2013 [101]   arm/hand and bladder/bowel function independent use, convenient use, non-invasiveness, functions, costs, set-up time  
Huggins et al., 2011 [88] high, even for implants   accuracy, speed, simplicity, standby mode  
Huggins et al., 2015 [102] high among persons with low functional independence dry electrodes better speed and set-up time  
Lahr et al., 2015 [103] high, even for implants   knowledge about risks/rewards  
Kageyama et al., 2014 [89] depending on severity of disease communication various control functions (TV, bed, emergency alarm)  
Pedrocchi et al., 2013 [104]    improve autonomy, home use, ease of use, be light and wearable  
van de Laar et al., 2013 [30]     testing control settings
Vuckovic/ Osuagwu, 2013 [31]     strategies for selecting promising BCIs
Zickler et al., 2009 [105]    functionality, independence (mobility, daily life activities, employment, ease of use)  
  1. The table below portrays the variety of different research objectives the studies were focused on. An empty box indicates that the focus of the study was not on the theme addressed in the respective column but on others