Table 1.

Studies with potential users employing quantitative research methods

Publication	Interest in BCIs	User preferences regarding BCI functions/features	Expectations towards BCI technology	Other aspects
Ahn et al., 2014 [12]		active and reactive BCIs		high potential of BCI; most potential fields: rehabilitation, prosthesis, gaming
Blabe et al., 2015 [100]		communication	ease of use, high performance, little maintenance, decent aesthetics
Collinger et al., 2013 [101]		arm/hand and bladder/bowel function	independent use, convenient use, non-invasiveness, functions, costs, set-up time
Huggins et al., 2011 [88]	high, even for implants		accuracy, speed, simplicity, standby mode
Huggins et al., 2015 [102]	high among persons with low functional independence	dry electrodes	better speed and set-up time
Lahr et al., 2015 [103]	high, even for implants		knowledge about risks/rewards
Kageyama et al., 2014 [89]	depending on severity of disease	communication	various control functions (TV, bed, emergency alarm)
Pedrocchi et al., 2013 [104]			improve autonomy, home use, ease of use, be light and wearable
van de Laar et al., 2013 [30]				testing control settings
Vuckovic/ Osuagwu, 2013 [31]				strategies for selecting promising BCIs
Zickler et al., 2009 [105]			functionality, independence (mobility, daily life activities, employment, ease of use)

The table below portrays the variety of different research objectives the studies were focused on. An empty box indicates that the focus of the study was not on the theme addressed in the respective column but on others