↓ Skip to main content

Keeping Disability in Mind: A Case Study in Implantable Brain–Computer Interface Research

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Keeping Disability in Mind: A Case Study in Implantable Brain–Computer Interface Research
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9928-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Specker Sullivan, Eran Klein, Tim Brown, Matthew Sample, Michelle Pham, Paul Tubig, Raney Folland, Anjali Truitt, Sara Goering

Abstract

Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) research is an interdisciplinary area of study within Neural Engineering. Recent interest in end-user perspectives has led to an intersection with user-centered design (UCD). The goal of user-centered design is to reduce the translational gap between researchers and potential end users. However, while qualitative studies have been conducted with end users of BCI technology, little is known about individual BCI researchers' experience with and attitudes towards UCD. Given the scientific, financial, and ethical imperatives of UCD, we sought to gain a better understanding of practical and principled considerations for researchers who engage with end users. We conducted a qualitative interview case study with neural engineering researchers at a center dedicated to the creation of BCIs. Our analysis generated five themes common across interviews. The thematic analysis shows that participants identify multiple beneficiaries of their work, including other researchers, clinicians working with devices, device end users, and families and caregivers of device users. Participants value experience with device end users, and personal experience is the most meaningful type of interaction. They welcome (or even encourage) end-user input, but are skeptical of limited focus groups and case studies. They also recognize a tension between creating sophisticated devices and developing technology that will meet user needs. Finally, interviewees espouse functional, assistive goals for their technology, but describe uncertainty in what degree of function is "good enough" for individual end users. Based on these results, we offer preliminary recommendations for conducting future UCD studies in BCI and neural engineering.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 14%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 6 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Other 18 32%
Unknown 15 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,978,562
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#619
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,481
of 319,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#17
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,714 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.