Skip to main content

Table 4 Studies with experts/professionals

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

Publication Methods Number of participants Interest in BCI technology Opinion towards BCI Requests from BCI BCI potential/future
Ahn et al., 2014 [12] questionnaire 36 game developer, 90 researchers developers prefer active and reactive BCIs, researchers prefer reactive BCIs developers are more concerned about the user’s opinion in contrast to the researchers   high potential of BCI and BCI games; further potential fields: in particular rehabilitation and prosthetics
Grübler et al., 2014 [85] survey 17 BCI professionals   ethical concerns reported: the duty of correct information transfer, avoiding unrealistic expectations in participants, BCI illiteracy, the risk of detrimental brain modifications due to BCI use and privacy issues   
Morone et al., 2015 [63] focus group + questionnaire 15 therapists   acceptance among therapists depends on their respective technical competence and attitude; skepticism about precondition of technical knowledge/skills future BCIs would require more goal-oriented feedback and spasticity monitoring  
Nijboer et al., 2013 [107] survey 145 BCI professionals   disagreement regarding terminology/definitions of BCIs and marketability of different BCIs; ethical concerns reported: informed consent, benefits/risks, team responsibility, consequences, liability/personal identity, and interaction with the media; non-invasive BCIs are estimated as being of low risk (indecisive about invasive BCIs); most BCI professionals hold the view that BCI users are responsible for their actions, while being uncertain regarding issues of liability; the effect of BCI activity on personal identity and self-image on the users are deemed to be unclear   
Nijboer et al., 2014 [108] survey + focus group 28 rehabilitation professionals (focus group: n = 28, survey: n = 18) the professionals ascribed no added value to BCI technology   human problems and practical issues should be taken into consideration potential BCI users are identified as those who possess intact cognition and have no extant physical or sudden movements (seizures, spasms) which can cause problems
Pedrocchi et al., 2013 [104] focus group 14 experts (mostly health care professionals)    reproduction of natural movements, ease of use, capability of multitasking, affordability  
Zickler et al., 2011 [71] questionnaires 3 assistive technology experts   setting too complex, setup time to long, long selection procedure, restricted mobility, prone to body movements improved cap and gel solution BCI as promising tool for the future