SynthesisFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
XR-integrated brain-computer interfaces for augmentative and alternative communication: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Communication is a fundamental human right and should not be constrained by disability; advances in modern technology are reshaping how communication is conceived and delivered, creating new possibilities for people who rely on augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). This systematic review examined whether immersive virtual, augmented, and mixed reality (VR/AR/MR; hereafter referred to as XR) has been integrated with brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) to support AAC for people who rely on it, and what evidence exists regarding usefulness and usability. Methods: Searches were conducted in five databases, with the initial search completed on 30 June 2021 and the updated search completed on 18 November 2025. Results: Two eligible studies were included. The evidence base was limited and methodologically heterogeneous, spanning distinct integration pathways: (i) an immersive-display implementation of a classic P300 speller suggesting communication performance comparable to conventional displays; and (ii) a wearable mixed-reality AAC concept contrasting non-BCI access (eye-gaze) with BCI-based access, with non-BCI access appearing more practically usable while BCI access remained challenging. Overall, the included studies indicate that immersive XR platforms can technically accommodate BCI-mediated interaction for communication-related purposes. Discussion: Current evidence remains sparse and heterogeneous, with usability and usefulness varying by application target and evaluation endpoint. This review therefore synthesises the available feasibility and usability/usefulness evidence and offers an open discussion of design and evaluation priorities for advancing BCI-enabled immersive AAC toward practical use in people who rely on it. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021273338, identifier: CRD42021273338.
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.