The perspectives of augmentative and alternative communication experts on the clinical integration of non-invasive brain-computer interfaces

References

• Beukelman D, Light J. Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. 5th ed. Baltimore (MD): Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Pitt KM, Brumberg JS. Guidelines for feature matching assessment of brain-computer interfaces for augmentative and alternative communication. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;27(3):950–964.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branco MP, Pels EG, Nijboer F, et al. Brain-Computer interfaces for communication: preferences of individuals with locked-in syndrome, caregivers and researchers. Disability Rehabi Assistive Technol. 2021;1–11. doi:10.1080/17483107.2021.1958932.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taherian S, Davies TC. Caregiver and special education staff perspectives of a commercial brain-computer interface as access technology: a qualitative study. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2018;5(2–3):73–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fager SK, Fried-Oken M, Jakobs T, et al. New and emerging access technologies for adults with complex communication needs and severe motor impairments: state of the science. Augment Altern Comm. 2019;35(1):13–25. doi:10.1080/07434618.2018.1556730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brumberg JS, Pitt KM, Mantie-Kozlowski A, et al. Brain-computer interfaces for augmentative and alternative communication: a tutorial. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;27(1):1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donchin E, Spencer KM, Wijesinghe R. The mental prosthesis: assessing the speed of a P300-based brain-computer interface. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2000;8(2):174–179.
   Google Scholar
• Pitt KM, Brumberg JS, Burnison JD, et al. Behind the scenes of noninvasive brain-computer interfaces: a review of electroencephalography signals, how they are recorded, and why they matter. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2019;4(6):1622–1636.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wolpaw JR, Bedlack RS, Reda DJ, et al. Independent home use of a brain-computer interface by people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurology. 2018;91(3):e258–e267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chavarriaga R, Fried-Oken M, Kleih S, et al. Heading for new shores! Overcoming pitfalls in BCI design. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2017;4(1–2):60–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitt KM, Brumberg JS, Pitt AR. Considering augmentative and alternative communication research for brain-computer interface practice. Assist Technol Outcomes Benefits. 2019;13(Summer):1–20. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/specedfacpub/203/
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Binger C, Ball L, Dietz A, et al. Personnel roles in the AAC assessment process. Augment Altern Comm. 2012;28(4):278–288. doi:10.3109/07434618.2012.716079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olswang LB, Prelock PA. Bridging the gap between research and practice: implementation science. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015;58(6):S1818–S1826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitt KM, Dietz AR. Applying implementation science to support active collaboration in noninvasive brain-computer interface development and translation for AAC. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021;1–12. doi:10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00152.
   Google Scholar
• Kübler A. The history of BCI: from a vision for the future to real support for personhood in people with locked-in syndrome. Neuroethics. 2020;13(2):163–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kübler A, Holz EM, Riccio A, et al. The user-centered design as novel perspective for evaluating the usability of BCI-controlled applications. PloS one. 2014;9(12):e112392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynn JMD, Armstrong E, Martin S. User centered design and validation during the development of domestic brain computer interface applications for people with acquired brain injury and therapists: a multi-stakeholder approach. J Assist Technol. 2016;10(2):67–78. doi:10.1108/JAT-01-2016-0002.
   Google Scholar
• Laudel G. Collaboration, creativity and rewards: why and how scientists collaborate. Int J Technol Mgmt. 2001;22(7–8):762–781. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2001.002990.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blain-Moraes S, Schaff R, Gruis KL, et al. Barriers to and mediators of brain-computer interface user acceptance: focus group findings. Ergonomics. 2012;55(5):516–525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geronimo A, Stephens HE, Schiff SJ, et al. Acceptance of brain-computer interfaces in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2015;16(3–4):258–264.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huggins JE, Wren PA, Gruis KL. What would brain-computer interface users want? Opinions and priorities of potential users with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. 2011;12(5):318–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters B, Mooney A, Oken B, et al. Soliciting BCI user experience feedback from people with severe speech and physical impairments. Brain Comput Interfaces. 2016;3(1):47–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitt KM, Brumberg JS. Evaluating the perspectives of those with severe physical impairments while learning BCI control of a commercial augmentative and alternative communication paradigm. Assistive Technol. 2021b; 1–9. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2021.1949405.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hill K, Huggins J, Woodworth C. 2020. Interprofessional practitioners’ opinions on features and services for an augmentative and alternative communication brain-computer interface device. PM&R: J Injury Funct Rehabl. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/pmrj.12525.
   Google Scholar
• Letourneau S, Zewdie ET, Jadavji Z, et al. Clinician awareness of brain computer interfaces: a Canadian national survey. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020;17(1): Article 2. doi:10.1186/s12984-019-0624-7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nijboer F, Plass-Oude Bos D, Blokland Y, et al. Design requirements and potential target users for brain-computer interfaces–Recommendations from rehabilitation professionals. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2014;1(1):50–61.
   Google Scholar
• Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quantity. 2018;52(4):1893–1907.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund SK, Quach W, Weissling K, et al. Assessment with children who need augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): clinical decisions of AAC specialists. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2017;48(1):56–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitt KM, McCarthy JW. What’s in a photograph? The perspectives of composition experts on factors impacting visual scene display complexity for augmentative and alternative communication and strategies for improving visual communication. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021;30:2080–2097. Advance online publication. doi:10.1044/2021_AJSLP-20-00350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• QSR International [Software]. NVivo 12 (Version 12 plus). 2018. Available from https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/products
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs GR. Analyzing qualitative data. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell J. Qualitative inquiry and research design. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill T, Wilkinson KM. Preliminary investigation of the perspectives of parents of children with cerebral palsy on the supports, challenges, and realities of integrating augmentative and alternative communication into everyday life. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2020;29(1):238–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Syed M, Nelson SC. Guidelines for establishing reliability when coding narrative data. Emerg Adulthood. 2015;3(6):375–387. doi:10.1177/2167696815587648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brantlinger E, Jimenez R, Klingner J, et al. Qualitative studies in special education. Except Child. 2005;71(2):195–207. doi:10.1177/001440290507100205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13:319–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moghimi S, Kushki A, Marie Guerguerian A, et al. A review of EEG-based brain-computer interfaces as access pathways for individuals with severe disabilities. Assistive Technol. 2013;25(2):99–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinney-Lang E, Kelly D, Floreani ED, et al. Advancing brain-computer interface applications for severely disabled children through a multidisciplinary national network: summary of the inaugural pediatric BCI Canada meeting. Front Hum Neurosci. 2020;14. Article 593883. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.593883.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherer R, Billinger M, Wagner J, et al. Thought-based row-column scanning communication board for individuals with cerebral palsy. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;58(1):14–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleih SC, Gottschalt L, Teichlein E, et al. Toward a P300 based brain-computer interface for aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: presentation of theoretical considerations and a pilot feasibility study. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10. Article 547. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00547.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brumberg JS, Nguyen A, Pitt KM, et al. Examining sensory ability, feature matching and assessment-based adaptation for a brain–computer interface using the steady-state visually evoked potential. Disability Rehabi Assistive Technol. 2019;14(3):241–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCane LM, Sellers EW, McFarland DJ, et al. Brain-computer interface (BCI) evaluation in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotrophic Lateral Scler Fronttemporal Degener. 2014;15(3–4):207–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters B, Bedrick S, Dudy S, et al. SSVEP BCI and eye tracking use by individuals with late-stage ALS and visual impairments. Front Hum Neurosci. 2020;14. Article 595890. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.595890.
   Google Scholar
• Dutt-Mazumder A, Huggins JE. Performance comparison of a non-invasive P300-based BCI mouse to a head-mouse for people with SCI. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2020;7(1–2):1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rupp R. Challenges in clinical applications of brain computer interfaces in individuals with spinal cord injury. Front Neuroeng. 2014;7. Article 38. doi:10.3389/fneng.2014.00038.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Daly J. P300 brain computer interface control after an acquired brain injury. Int J Recent Innovation Trends Comput Commun. 2015;3(1):318–325.
   Google Scholar
• Mayaud L, Cabanilles S, Van Langhenhove A, et al. Brain-computer interface for the communication of acute patients: a feasibility study and a randomized controlled trial comparing performance with healthy participants and a traditional assistive device. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2016;3(4):197–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellers EW, Kübler A, Donchin E. Brain-computer interface research at the University of South Florida cognitive psychophysiology laboratory: the P300 speller. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2006;14(2):221–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fried-Oken M, Mooney A, Peters B, et al. A clinical screening protocol for the RSVP Keyboard brain–computer interface. Disability Rehabi Assistive Technol. 2015;10(1):11–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell N, Vaidyanathan V, Medhi I, et al. (2012, May). “Yours is better!” participant response bias in HCI. In Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems, Austin, Texas, USA (pp. 1321–1330). doi:10.1145/2207676.2208589.
   Google Scholar
• Smith MM, Connolly I. Roles of aided communication: perspectives of adults who use AAC. Disability Rehabi Assistive Technol. 2008;3(5):260–273.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brukamp K (2020). Brain-computer interfaces for communication in severe acquired brain damage: challenges and strategies in clinical research and development. In Antona M, Stephanidis C (Eds.), Universal access in human-computer interaction: Design approaches and supporting technologies. Proceedings, Part, Copenhagen, Denmark (Vol. 1, pp. 113–123). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-49282-3_8.
   Google Scholar
• Kübler A, Mushahwar VK, Hochberg LR, et al. BCI Meeting 2005–Workshop on clinical issues and applications. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2006;14(2):131–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vlek RJ, Steines D, Szibbo D, et al. Ethical issues in brain–computer interface research, development, and dissemination. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2012;36(2):94–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albudoor N, Peña ED. Factors influencing US speech and language therapists’ use of technology for clinical practice. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2021;56(3):567–582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufmann T, Völker S, Gunesch L, et al. Spelling is just a click away–A user-centered brain–computer interface including auto-calibration and predictive text entry. Front Neurosci. 2012;6. Article 72. doi:10.3389/fnins.2012.00072.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Geronimo A, Simmons Z. TeleBCI: remote user training, monitoring, and communication with an evoked-potential brain-computer interface. Brain Comput Interfaces. 2020;7(3–4):57–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linse K, Aust E, Joos M, et al. Communication matters–Pitfalls and promise of hightech communication devices in palliative care of severely physically disabled patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Front Neurol. 2018;9. Article 603. doi:10.3389/fneur.2018.00603.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baxter S, Enderby P, Evans P, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the use of high-technology augmentative and alternative communication devices: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2012;47(2):115–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson JM, Inglebret E, Jones C, et al. Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augment Altern Comm. 2006;22(2):85–99. doi:10.1080/07434610500483588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huggins JE, Kovacs T. Brain–computer interfaces for augmentative and alternative communication: separating the reality from the hype. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2018;3(12):13–23.
   Google Scholar
• Steve Gleason Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-40, 129 Stat. 441 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ40/PLAW-114publ40.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brumberg JS, Burnison JD, Pitt KM. Using motor imagery to control brain-computer interfaces for communication. Schmorrow D, Fidopiastis C, editors. Foundations of augmented cognition: neuroergonomics and operational neuroscience (Vol. 9743, pp. 14–25). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39955-3_2.
   Google Scholar
• Pitt KM, Brumberg JS. Evaluating person-centered factors associated with brain–computer interface access to a commercial augmentative and alternative communication paradigm. Assistive Technol. 2021a; Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10400435.2021.1872737.
   Google Scholar
• Zickler C, Riccio A, Leotta F, et al. A brain-computer interface as input channel for a standard assistive technology software. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2011;42(4):236–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser RW, Raghavendra P. Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Comm. 2004;20(1):1–21. doi:10.1080/07434610310001621083.
   Google Scholar
• Nijboer F. Technology transfer of brain-computer interfaces as assistive technology: barriers and opportunities. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;58(1):35–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahani A, Wiegand K, Orhan U, et al. RSVP IconMessenger: icon-based brain-interfaced alternative and augmentative communication. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2014;1(3–4):192–203.
   Google Scholar
• Holyfield C, Light J, Mcnaughton D, et al. Effect of AAC technology with dynamic text on the single-word recognition of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2020;22(2):129–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D, Weyer M, et al. Evidence-based literacy instruction for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: a case study of a student with multiple disabilities. Semin Speech Lang. 2008;29(2):120–132.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mandak, K, Light, J, Boyle, S. The effects of literacy interventions on single-word reading for individuals who use aided AAC: a systematic review. Augment Altern Comm. 2018;34(3):206–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hourcade J, Everhart Pilotte T, West E, et al. A history of augmentative and alternative communication for individuals with severe and profound disabilities. Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl. 2004;19(4):235–244. doi:10.1177/10883576040190040501.
   Google Scholar
• Sugeir S, Naylor S. Critical care and personalized or precision medicine: who needs whom? J Crit Care. 2018;43:401–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D, Caron J. New and emerging AAC technology supports for children with complex communication needs and their communication partners: state of the science and future research directions. Augment Altern Comm. 2019;35(1):26–41. doi:10.1080/07434618.2018.1557251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill K, Kovacs T, Shin S. Critical issues using brain-computer interfaces for augmentative and alternative communication. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(S3):S8–S15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pitt K, Brumberg J. A screening protocol incorporating brain-computer interface feature matching considerations for augmentative and alternative communication. Assistive Technol. 2018;32(3):161–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andresen EM, Fried-Oken M, Peters B, et al. Initial constructs for patient-centered outcome measures to evaluate brain–computer interfaces. Disability Rehabi Assistive Technol. 2016;11(7):548–557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huggins JE, Krusienski D, Vansteensel MJ, et al. Workshops of the eighth international brain–computer interface meeting: BCIs: the next frontier. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2022;1–33. doi:10.1080/2326263X.2021.2009654
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. (2017). Body functions. https://apps.who.int/classifications/icfbrowser/
   Google Scholar
• Drager K, Light J, McNaughton D. Effects of AAC interventions on communication and language for young children with complex communication needs. J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2010;3(4):303–310.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goethe O, Salehzadeh Niksirat K, Hirskyj-Douglas I, et al. (2019). From UX to engagement: connecting theory and practice, addressing ethics and diversity. In Antona M, Stephanidis C (Eds.), Universal access in human-computer interaction: Theory, methods and tools. Proceedings, Part 1 (pp. 91–99). Orlando, Florida: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23560-4_7.
   Google Scholar
• Lim H, Ku J (2019). High engagement in BCI action observation game by relevant character’s movement. In Proceedings of the 2019 7th International Winter Conference on Brain-Computer Interface (BCI), Gangwon, Korea (South) (pp. 1–3). IEEE. Available from 10.1109/IWW-BCI.2019.8737252
   Google Scholar
• McKelvey ML, Hux K, Dietz A, et al. Impact of personal relevance and contextualization on word-picture matching by people with aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010;19(1):22–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones MR, Sellers EW. Faces, locations, and tools: a proposed two-stimulus P300 brain computer interface. J Neural Eng. 2019;16(3):036026. Article 036026. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aaff22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufmann T, Schulz SM, Köblitz A, et al. Face stimuli effectively prevent brain–computer interface inefficiency in patients with neurodegenerative disease. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013;124(5):893–900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miralles F, Vargiu E, Rafael-Palou X, et al. 2015. Brain–computer interfaces on track to home: results of the evaluation at disabled end-users’ homes and lessons learnt. Front ICT, 2. 2, Article 25. doi:10.3389/fict.2015.00025.
   Google Scholar
• Rezeika A, Benda M, Stawicki P, et al. Brain– computer interface spellers: a review. Brain Sci. 2018;8(4):57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habibzadeh H, Zhou O, Norton JJ, et al. (2021). A classifier for improving cause and effect in SSVEP-based BCIs for individuals with complex communication disorders. In Proceedings of the ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Toronto, ON, Canada (pp. 970–974). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICASSP39728.2021.9414075.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly D, Jadavji Z, Zewdie E, et al. (2020). A child’s right to play: results from the brain-computer interface game Jam 2019 (Calgary competition). In Proceedings of the 2020 42nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society, Montreal, QC, Canada (pp. 6099–6102). IEEE. Available from 10.1109/EMBC44109.2020.9176272
   Google Scholar
• Pillette L, Jeunet C, N’Kambou R, et al. (2019). Towards artificial learning companions for mental imagery-based brain-computer interfaces. Retrieved August 30, 2021, from https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.09658v1
   Google Scholar