In a recent article [1], Nijboer addressed an important topic for brain-computer interface (BCI) research and development: How can we develop a technology that will in the end be used by the target population? [1]. We have few recent studies demonstrating the independent home use of BCI [2][3][4]. Although these were single case studies, they do show the potential feasibility of BCI for the target population and provide valuable information on the prerequisites for transferring BCI to patients' homes and for reliable operation.Despite these exemplary success stories, indeed a wide gap exists between the amount of research conducted in laboratory settings with healthy subjects and translational research with targeted end-users, specifically in their home environment and without experts being present. Fig. 1 illustrates this gap: the overall number of BCI-related publications is high and has been almost exponentially increasing in the past 2 decades; however, those including or referring to patients are about 10-fold lower but are fortunately also increasing.As one measure to address the issue of technology transfer, the user-centred design (UCD) is recommended and requested to be adopted. In this iterative process, the developers and users communicate about the requirements of a product and its implementation, with the aim of the final product being used in the daily life of the target population. We agree that the UCD provides an excellent framework to foster BCI development together with the target users. Valuable work in this direction has been performed in recent years by the BCI community; for example, the first paper introducing the UCD in a BCI study with patient end-users was published in 2011 [5]. Kü bler and colleagues adapted the UCD to BCI with a sample of 19 patients with severe motor paralysis and the locked-in state (see Fig. 2) [6]. As requested by Nijboer, usability as defined by the ISO 9241-210 [7] was addressed with its components effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. Effectiveness (i.e., how well the task can be mastered by the target group) was defined as accuracy. Accuracy indicates how often a correct selection occurred in relation to the total number of attempts. Efficiency (i.e., how much effort is needed to be effective) was operationalised as information transfer rate (ITR) and workload. ITR is an objective measure that captures how much information can be transferred per time unit and takes into account how many options for selection exist. Additionally, the utility metric was suggested, because if accuracy is < 50%, practically, no information can be conveyed if more than every other selection is wrong. Workload as a subjective measure can be assessed with the NASA Task Load Index [8]. Satisfaction was suggested to be measured by the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction [9], which was adapted to BCI in that 4 BCI-relevant items were included: reliability, speed, learnability, and aesthetic design [5], all features considered important by Nijboer. Visual analogue scales were s...