Purpose: Brain-computer interface (BCI)-controlled wheelchairs have the potential to improve the independence of people with mobility impairments. The low uptake of BCI devices has been linked to a lack of knowledge among researchers of the needs of end-users that should influence BCI development.
Materials and methods: This study used semi-structured interviews to learn about the perceptions, needs, and expectations of spinal cord injury (SCI) patients with regards to a BCI-controlled wheelchair. Topics discussed in the interview include: paradigms, shared control, safety, robustness, channel selection, hardware, and experimental design. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed. Analysis was carried out using coding based on grounded theory principles.
Results: The majority of participants had a positive view of BCI-controlled wheelchair technology and were willing to use the technology. Core issues were raised regarding safety, cost and aesthetics. Interview discussions were linked to state-of-the-art BCI technology. The results challenge the current reliance of researchers on the motor-imagery paradigm by suggesting end-users expect highly intuitive paradigms. There also needs to be a stronger focus on obstacle avoidance and safety features in BCI wheelchairs. Finally, the development of control approaches that can be personalized for individual users may be instrumental for widespread adoption of these devices.
Conclusions: This study, based on interviews with SCI patients, indicates that BCI-controlled wheelchairs are a promising assistive technology that would be well received by end-users. Recommendations for a more person-centered design of BCI controlled wheelchairs are made and clear avenues for future research are identified.
Keywords: Brain-computer interface; electroencephalogram; end-user; interview; paradigm; shared control; user centered design; wheelchair.
Brain-computer interface (BCI)-controlled wheelchairs are a promising assistive technology. The majority of participants had positive views of these devices and showed a willingness to try out such a device.Concerns centered on safety, cost and aesthetics.Integrated obstacle avoidance was viewed positively by most of the participants, but some had a negative view, expressing concerns about its safety, or reduced autonomy. Customizable control options should thus be integrated to cater for the needs of different individuals.