User-centred design in brain–computer interface research and development

Abstract

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...

Analyzing and computing humans by means of the brain using Brain-Computer Interfaces - understanding the user – previous evidence, self-relevance and the user’s self-concept as potential superordinate human factors of relevance

“…This stands in opposition to studies that found that user's traits can modulate the user's BCI experience (see section "2.1 Human factors related to BCI engineering and ergonomics"). In this case, both past and current research suggest a strong correlation between the user's self-reported operation performance and their self-reported performance satisfaction with their BCI performance (see for a discussion Kübler et al, 2015). In addition, the user's self-reported and perceived effectiveness (Kübler et al, 2014) and their acceptability of the BCIs as well as their affinity with technology (e.g., Hagedorn et al, 2021;Leeuwis et al, 2021) seem to modulate BCI performance among different vulnerable end-user groups.…”

“…This has encouraged discussions about the relevance of research on human factors not only in the domain of human-computer interaction (HCI) in general, but in the domain of BCI research, its deployment and application as well (for an overview see for example, Botte-Lecocq et al, 2014;Kleih and Kübler, 2015). Furthermore, the discussion on the role of the BCI user has promoted theoretical suggestions of how to integrate human factors into BCI technology by means of a user-centered approach (for an overview see e.g., Kübler et al, 2015Kübler et al, , 2020Alonso-Valerdi and Mercado-Garcıa, 2019; or for motor imagery based BCIs, e.g., Lyu et al, 2023). Additionally, guidelines of BCI training protocols have been suggested to incorporate human factors into the BCI settings (Mason and Birch, 2003;Botte-Lecocq et al, 2014;Jeunet et al, 2018).…”

Brain-computer interfaces and human factors: the role of language and cultural differences—Still a missing gap?

“…This hypothesis and theory paper aimed at raising awareness for including the user’s language and cultural differences as human factors in BCI research. As explained in the previous sections, an interdisciplinary, theory-driven exploration of linguistic and cultural factors and their relevance to design and engineering aspects has not yet been established as a fundamental part of a user-centered BCI approach (for discussion, see, e.g., Kübler et al, 2015 and recent trends e.g., Gena et al, 2023 ). Therefore, future BCI applications should particularly draw attention to linguistic and cultural aspects when designed to include various users.…”

Recording the tactile P300 with the cEEGrid for potential use in a brain-computer interface

“…2020 ). Thus, a notable translational gap remains, despite the fact that BCIs have long been proven feasible under laboratory conditions ( Kübler, 2013 ; Kübler et al, 2015 ; Nijboer, 2015 ). The user-centered approach to BCI design has been adapted to evaluate BCI operation in a multimodal way ( Zickler et al, 2011 ).…”