ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Individualized brain-computer interface for people with disabilities: a review.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bio-Inspired Gaze and Neural Command Fusion for Assistive Smartphone Interaction.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From technological closed-loop to human-machine trust: a systematic review of ethical and communication challenges of brain-computer interface in elderly care.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) facilitate functional interaction between the brain and external devices, enabling users to bypass their typical peripheral motor actions to control assistive and rehabilitative technologies (ARTs). This review critically evaluates the state-of-the-art BCI-based ARTs by integrating the psychosocial and health-related factors impacting user needs, highlighting the influence of brain changes during development and aging on the design and ethical use of BCI technologies. As direct human-computer interfaces, BCI-based ARTs offer extended degrees of freedom via augmented mobility, cognition and communication, especially to people with disabilities. However, the innovation in BCI-based ARTs is guided by the complexity of disability types and levels of function across users that define individual needs. Therefore, an adaptable design is essential for tailoring a BCI-based ART that can fulfill user-specific requirements, which may hinder the scalability of BCIs for their widespread adoption across users with disabilities. The trade-offs between implantable and non-implantable BCIs are explored along with complex decisions around informed consent for people with communication or cognitive disabilities and pediatric settings. Non-implantable BCIs offer broader accessibility and transferability across users due to wider standardized signal acquisition and algorithm generalization, making them suited for a more comprehensive user group. This review contributes to the field by providing individualized user needs-informed discussion of BCI-based ARTs, emphasizing the need for adaptable designs that align the evolving functional and developmental needs of users with disabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.