Table 3 Studies with participants with physical impairments employing qualitative research methods
From: Using brain-computer interfaces: a scoping review of studies employing social research methods
Publication | Data gaining methods | Data analyzing methods | Number of partici-pants | Opinion towards BCI | Issues reported | Requests from technology | Social relations | Quality of life | Personality | Future BCI scenarios |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Andresen et al., 2016 [106] | interviews | thematic analysis | 8 | discussion limited to naming techno-logical dimensions (function, design, support) which are deemed to be of relevance | importance of social participation and communication (discussion is not directly linked to BCIs) | |||||
Blain-Moraes et al., 2012 [90] | focus group | mix of qualitative methods (content analysis, thematic analysis) | 8 | offering freedom, hope, connection, independence; comfortability of learning to use the technology | mental and physical fatigue, anxiety, pain/discomfort | comfortability, ease of use, enabling communication and interlinkages to TV and phone; use in home environment; dignifying appearance | worries regarding surplus-work effort for caregivers, but also provides caregivers with more time while using BCI | |||
Brown et al., 2016 [84] | semistructured interviews | none specified | 1 (5 inter-views) | with implant: feeling self-conscious, irritation about usage; difficulty of control | less expensive (batteries) | complexity of BCI use is at odds with the user’s “simple” and “easy-going” self-image | ||||
Carmichael/ Carmichael, 2014 [83] | “participatory research” | none specified | 8 | uncertainty towards technology due to its novelty and tentative nature | cap, electrodes, frustration about BCI illiteracy | more information | participation in and contribution to research progress and technology development | |||
Cincotti et al., 2008 [36] | interactive discus-sions, interviews | none specified | 14 | home use | preference for front door opener reflects will to determine who can play a part in their social lives | raising quality of life if being used at home | ||||
Grübler et al., 2014 [85] | semi-structured interviews | qualitative content analysis (referring to Grounded Theory Method-ology) | 19 | expecting physical improvement, supporting science, curiosity towards technology, overall satisfaction with BCI testing; feeling astonished about BCI control | discomfort and annoyance (prep-arations and electrodes), burden of transportation, fatigue, disappoint-ment/anger (about failure) | data security | moments of self-experience | BCIs are deemed to be impractical for everyday life use; no need for regulating BCIs | ||
Grübler/Hildt, 2014 [87] | semi-structured interviews | (same as in Grübler et al. 2014) | 19 (same as in Grübler et al. 2014) | varying opinions regarding (1) forming a functional unit with the BCI and (2) being able to forget about the technology while using it | ||||||
Heidrich et al., 2015 [81] | participant obser-vation | none specified | not specified | enjoyment | more efficiency | |||||
Hildt, 2014 [86] | semi-structured interviews | (same as in Grübler et al. 2014) | same as in Grübler et al. 2014 | varying opinions regarding (1) forming a functional unit with the BCI and (2) being able to forget about the technology while using it | ||||||
Holz, 2015 [38] | semi-structured interviews | none specified | 4 + 4 + 2 (three different studies) | provides joy and happiness | provides opportunities for creativity and self-expression | |||||
Holz et al., 2013 [56] | semi-structured interviews, focus group | none specified | 4 | BCIs for daily use are desirable given the technology improves | more training required | technical improve-ments, additional functions (e.g. “undo-function”) | ||||
Holz/Botrel/ Kübler, 2015 [40] | personal statements | none specified | 2 | fun, happiness | increased dependence on others | participating on social public life through art exhibitions | self-esteem, expression of creativity, satis-faction | |||
Kübler et al., 2013 [61] | open interviews | none specified | 17 | set-up time, cap (comfort and look), need for washing hair after training, limited mobility, low speed | ||||||
Kübler et al., 2014 [62] | interviews | none specified | 19 | set-up, gel/cap, speed | ease of use and higher speed are imperatives for daily BCI use | |||||
Lightbody et al., 2010 [46] | workshop, interviews | none specified | 15 | satisfaction, preference for testing communi-cation functions | discontent with phone function | control of technical devices (especially TV), better ease of use | being part of research team | potential for providing more engagement and participation | ||
Mulvenna et al., 2012 [49] | focus groups, interviews, interactive workshops | none specified | 20 + 11 | satisfaction, appreciation | ||||||
Şahinol, 2016 [82] | ethno-graphic field work (passive and participant obser-vations, video and audio materials, in-depth interviews) | Grounded Theory Metho-dology | 6 (inter-views with study partici-pants) | physical and mental strains, frustration, belied expectations, pain | participation in studies as a pastime | on the one hand: sense of agency, cooperation with machine; on the other hand: uncertainty about causes of actions (self or machine), feeling of objectifycation due to being a study participant | ||||
Salisbury et al., 2016 [10] | semi-structured qualitative questions | none specified | 25 | enjoyment | ||||||
Zickler et al., 2011 [71] | open interviews | none specified | 4 | control of wheelchair and other devices | daily use would require improve-ments regarding the cap, the ease of use, the size of the hardware, speed, and additional control opportunities | |||||
Zickler et al., 2013 [72] | semi-structured qualitative questions | none specified | 4 | enjoyment | gel induced skin problems, set-up time | improvement of the matrix, integration in other AT devices | creative expression | daily use would require less electrodes and no cable and appropriate service support |