One of the main goals of brain-machine interface (BMI) research is to restore function to people with paralysis. Currently, multiple BMI design features are being investigated, based on various input modalities (externally applied and surgically implantable sensors) and output modalities (e.g. control of computer systems, prosthetic arms, and functional electrical stimulation systems). While these technologies may eventually provide some level of benefit, they each carry associated burdens for end-users. We sought to assess the attitudes of people with paralysis toward using various technologies to achieve particular benefits, given the burdens currently associated with the use of each system.
We designed and distributed a technology survey to determine the level of benefit necessary for people with tetraplegia due to spinal cord injury to consider using different technologies, given the burdens currently associated with them. The survey queried user preferences for 8 BMI technologies including electroencephalography, electrocorticography, and intracortical microelectrode arrays, as well as a commercially available eye tracking system for comparison. Participants used a 5-point scale to rate their likelihood to adopt these technologies for 13 potential control capabilities.
Survey respondents were most likely to adopt BMI technology to restore some of their natural upper extremity function, including restoration of hand grasp and/or some degree of natural arm movement. High speed typing and control of a fast robot arm were also of interest to this population. Surgically implanted wireless technologies were twice as 'likely' to be adopted as their wired equivalents.
Assessing end-user preferences is an essential prerequisite to the design and implementation of any assistive technology. The results of this survey suggest that people with tetraplegia would adopt an unobtrusive, autonomous BMI system for both restoration of upper extremity function and control of external devices such as communication interfaces.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 17 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,896,807
of 27,782,313 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neural Engineering
#108
of 1,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,794
of 278,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neural Engineering
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,782,313 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 278,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
