BACKGROUND: For many years the reestablishment of communication for people with severe motor paralysis has been in the focus of brain-computer interface (BCI) research. Recently applications for entertainment have also been developed. Brain Painting allows the user creative expression through painting pictures. OBJECTIVE: The second, revised prototype of the BCI Brain Painting application was evaluated in its target function - free painting - and compared to the P300 spelling application by four end users with severe disabilities. METHODS: According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), usability was evaluated in terms of effectiveness (accuracy), efficiency (information transfer rate (ITR)), utility metric, subjective workload (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA TLX)) and user satisfaction (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST) 2.0 and Assistive Technology Device Predisposition Assessment (ATD PA), Device Form). RESULTS: The results revealed high performance levels (M≥80% accuracy) in the free painting and the copy painting conditions, ITRs (4.47-6.65bits/min) comparable to other P300 applications and only low to moderate workload levels (5-49 of 100), thereby proving that the complex task of free painting did neither impair performance nor impose insurmountable workload. Users were satisfied with the BCI Brain Painting application. Main obstacles for use in daily life were the system operability and the EEG cap, particularly the need of extensive support for adjustment. CONCLUSION: The P300 Brain Painting application can be operated with high effectiveness and efficiency. End users with severe motor paralysis would like to use the application in daily life. User-friendliness, specifically ease of use, is a mandatory necessity when bringing BCI to end users. Early and active involvement of users and iterative user-centered evaluation enable developers to work toward this goal.
BACKGROUND: For many years the reestablishment of communication for people with severe motor paralysis has been in the focus of brain-computer interface (BCI) research. Recently applications for entertainment have also been developed. Brain Painting allows the user creative expression through painting pictures. OBJECTIVE: The second, revised prototype of the BCI Brain Painting application was evaluated in its target function - free painting - and compared to the P300 spelling application by four end users with severe disabilities. METHODS: According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), usability was evaluated in terms of effectiveness (accuracy), efficiency (information transfer rate (ITR)), utility metric, subjective workload (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA TLX)) and user satisfaction (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST) 2.0 and Assistive Technology Device Predisposition Assessment (ATD PA), Device Form). RESULTS: The results revealed high performance levels (M≥80% accuracy) in the free painting and the copy painting conditions, ITRs (4.47-6.65bits/min) comparable to other P300 applications and only low to moderate workload levels (5-49 of 100), thereby proving that the complex task of free painting did neither impair performance nor impose insurmountable workload. Users were satisfied with the BCI Brain Painting application. Main obstacles for use in daily life were the system operability and the EEG cap, particularly the need of extensive support for adjustment. CONCLUSION: The P300 Brain Painting application can be operated with high effectiveness and efficiency. End users with severe motor paralysis would like to use the application in daily life. User-friendliness, specifically ease of use, is a mandatory necessity when bringing BCI to end users. Early and active involvement of users and iterative user-centered evaluation enable developers to work toward this goal.
Authors: Jane E Huggins; Christoph Guger; Erik Aarnoutse; Brendan Allison; Charles W Anderson; Steven Bedrick; Walter Besio; Ricardo Chavarriaga; Jennifer L Collinger; An H Do; Christian Herff; Matthias Hohmann; Michelle Kinsella; Kyuhwa Lee; Fabien Lotte; Gernot Müller-Putz; Anton Nijholt; Elmar Pels; Betts Peters; Felix Putze; Rüdiger Rupp; Gerwin Schalk; Stephanie Scott; Michael Tangermann; Paul Tubig; Thorsten Zander Journal: Brain Comput Interfaces (Abingdon) Date: 2019-12-10
Authors: Anna Zulauf-Czaja; Manaf K H Al-Taleb; Mariel Purcell; Nina Petric-Gray; Jennifer Cloughley; Aleksandra Vuckovic Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Laura Specker Sullivan; Eran Klein; Tim Brown; Matthew Sample; Michelle Pham; Paul Tubig; Raney Folland; Anjali Truitt; Sara Goering Journal: Sci Eng Ethics Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 3.525
Authors: Mariana P Branco; Elmar G M Pels; Femke Nijboer; Nick F Ramsey; Mariska J Vansteensel Journal: Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol Date: 2021-08-12
Authors: Jane E Huggins; Christoph Guger; Brendan Allison; Charles W Anderson; Aaron Batista; Anne-Marie A-M Brouwer; Clemens Brunner; Ricardo Chavarriaga; Melanie Fried-Oken; Aysegul Gunduz; Disha Gupta; Andrea Kübler; Robert Leeb; Fabien Lotte; Lee E Miller; Gernot Müller-Putz; Tomasz Rutkowski; Michael Tangermann; David Edward Thompson Journal: Brain Comput Interfaces (Abingdon) Date: 2014-01
Authors: Felip Miralles; Eloisa Vargiu; Stefan Dauwalder; Marc Solà; Gernot Müller-Putz; Selina C Wriessnegger; Andreas Pinegger; Andrea Kübler; Sebastian Halder; Ivo Käthner; Suzanne Martin; Jean Daly; Elaine Armstrong; Christoph Guger; Christoph Hintermüller; Hannah Lowish Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2015-06-08