What stakeholders with neurodegenerative conditions value about speech and accuracy in development of BCI systems for communication

References

• Fishman I. Electronic communication aids: selection and use. London: College Hill Press; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Harris D, Vanderheiden G. Enhancing the development of communication interaction. In: Schiefelbusch R, editor Nonspeech language and communication. Baltimore: University Park Press; 1980. p. 227–257.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderheiden GC. High and low technology development of communication systems for severely physically handicapped persons. Exceptional Education Quarterly. 1984;4(4):40–57. doi: 10.1177/074193258400400406
   Google Scholar
• Foulds R. Communication rates for nonspeech expression as a function of manual tasks and linguistic constraints. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Rehabilitation Engineering. Toronto; 1980 June. p 83–87.
   Google Scholar
• Bieker G, Noethe G, Fried-Oken M. Brain-computer interface: locked-in and reaching new heights. SpeakUP. USSAAC Newsletter. 2011 Dec: 3–6
   Google Scholar
• Vanderheiden GC. A journey through early augmentative communication and computer access. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002;39(6):39–53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Copeland K. Aids for the severely handicapped. London: Sector Publishing Limited; 1974.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderheiden GC. Providing a child with a means to indicate. In: Vanderheiden G, and Grilley K, editors Non-vocal communication techniques and aids for the severely physically handicapped. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press; 1976. p. 20–76.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderheiden GC. Non-vocal communication resource book. Baltimore: University Park Press; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Peters B, Bieker G, Heckman SM, et al. Brain-computer interface users speak up: the virtual users’ forum at the 2013 international brain-computer interface meeting. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(3):S33–S37. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.03.037
   PubMed 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. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112392
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi I, Rhiu I, Lee Y, et al. A systematic review of hybrid brain-computer interfaces: taxonomy and usability perspectives. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0176674. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176674
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trnka K, Yarrington D, McCaw J, et al. User interaction with word prediction: the effects of prediction quality. ACM Trans Access Comput. 2009;1(3):1–34. doi: 10.1145/1497302.1497307
   Google Scholar
• Todman J. Rate and quality of conversations using a text-storage AAC system: single-case training study. AAC. 2000;16(3):164–179. doi: 10.1080/07434610012331279024
   Google Scholar
• Wisenburn B, Higginbotham DJ. Participant evaluations of rate and communication efficacy of an AAC application using natural language processing. AAC. 2009;25(2):78–89. doi: 10.1080/07434610902739876
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham DJ, Lesher GW, Moulton BJ, et al. The application of natural language processing to augmentative and alternative communication. Assistive Technol. 2012;24(1):14–24. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2011.648714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbons C, Beneteau E. Functional performance using eye control and single switch scanning by people with ALS. AAC. 2010;19(3):64–69. doi: 10.1044/aac19.3.64
   Google Scholar
• Szeto A, Allen E, Littrell M. Comparison of speed and accuracy for selected electronic communication devices and input methods. AAC. 1993;9(4):229–242. doi: 10.1080/07434619312331276651
   Google Scholar
• Grice HP. Logic and communication. In: Cole P, Morgan JL, editors. Syntax and Semantics Vol 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press; 1975. pp. 41–58.
   Google Scholar
• Bedrosian JL, Hoag LA, McCoy KF. Relevance and speed of message delivery trade-offs in augmentative and alternative communication. JSLHR. 2003;46(4):800–817. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2003/063)
   Google Scholar
• Klein E, Kinsella M, Stevens I, et al. Ethical issues raised by incorporating personalized language models into brain-computer interface communication technologies: a qualitative study of individuals with neurological disease. Disability Rehabi Assistive Technol. 2022;1–11. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2022.2146217
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt J, Spencer M, Folstein M. The telephone interview for cognitive status. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 1988;1(2):111–117.
   Google Scholar
• Hillel AD, Miller RM, Yorkston K, et al. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis severity scale. Neuroepidemiology. 1989;8(3):142–150. doi: 10.1159/000110176
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versalovic E, Diamond M, Klein E. “Re-identifying yourself”: a qualitative study of veteran views on implantable BCI for mobility and communication in ALS. Disability Rehabi Assistive Technol. 2022;17(7):807–814. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2020.1817991
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss A, Corbin JM. Grounded theory in practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman B, Hendry DG. Value sensitive design: shaping technology with moral imagination. Boston: MIT Press; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Costanza-Chock S. Design justice: community-led practices to build the worlds we need. Boston: MIT Press; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Peters B, Eddy B, Galvin-McLaughlin D, et al. A systematic review of research on augmentative and alternative communication brain-computer interface systems for individuals with disabilities. Front Human Neurosci. 2022;16:16. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.952380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor S, Balandin S. The ethics of inclusion in AAC research of participants with complex communication needs. Scand J Disabil Res. 2020;22(1):108–115. doi: 10.16993/sjdr.637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beneteau E. Who are you asking? Qualitative methods for involving AAC users as primary research participants. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.2020 April; p. 1–13. doi: 10.1145/3313831.3376883
   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. doi: 10.1080/2326263X.2015.1138056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalemans RJ, De Witte L, Wade D, et al. Social participation through the eyes of people with aphasia. IJLCD. 2010;45(5):537–550. doi: 10.3109/13682820903223633
   Google Scholar
• Allen BJ. Difference matters: communicating social identity. Lake Grove, IL: Waveland Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Pitt KM, McKelvey M, Weissling K. The perspectives of augmentative and alternative communication experts on the clinical integration of non-invasive brain-computer interfaces. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2022;9(4):193–210. doi: 10.1080/2326263X.2022.2057758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subrahmaniyan N, Higginbotham DJ, Bisantz AM. Using personas to support augmentative alternative communication device design: A validation and evaluation study. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2018;34(1):84–97. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2017.1330802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han Y, Ziebell P, Riccio A, et al. Two sides of the same coin: adaptation of BCIs to internal states with user-centered design and electrophysiological features. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2022;9(2):102–114. doi: 10.1080/2326263X.2022.2041294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vansteensel MJ, Klein E, van Thiel G, et al. Towards clinical application of implantable brain–computer interfaces for people with late-stage ALS: medical and ethical considerations. J Neurol. 2022;270(3):1–14. doi: 10.1007/s00415-022-11464-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willett FR, Avansino DT, Hochberg LR, et al. High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting. Nature. 2021;593(7858):249–254. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03506-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayring P. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods. In: Mayring P, Huber GL, Gürtler L, Kiegelmann M, editors. Mixed methodology in psychological research. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill; 2007. pp. 27–36.
   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. doi: 10.1080/2326263X.2016.1263916
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vansteensel MJ, Kristo G, Aarnoutse EJ, et al. The brain-computer interface researcher’s questionnaire: from research to application. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2017;4(4):236–247. doi: 10.1080/2326263X.2017.1366237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein E, Goering S, Gagne J, et al. Brain-computer interface-based control of closed-loop brain stimulation: attitudes and ethical considerations. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2016;3(3):140–148. doi: 10.1080/2326263X.2016.1207497
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar