Table 4.
Studies with experts/professionals
| Publication | Methods | Number of participants | Interest in BCI technology | Opinion towards BCI | Requests from BCI | BCI potential/future |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahn et al., 2014 [12] | questionnaire | 36 game developer, 90 researchers | developers prefer active and reactive BCIs, researchers prefer reactive BCIs | developers are more concerned about the user’s opinion in contrast to the researchers | high potential of BCI and BCI games; further potential fields: in particular rehabilitation and prosthetics | |
| Grübler et al., 2014 [85] | survey | 17 BCI professionals | ethical concerns reported: the duty of correct information transfer, avoiding unrealistic expectations in participants, BCI illiteracy, the risk of detrimental brain modifications due to BCI use and privacy issues | |||
| Morone et al., 2015 [63] | focus group + questionnaire | 15 therapists | acceptance among therapists depends on their respective technical competence and attitude; skepticism about precondition of technical knowledge/skills | future BCIs would require more goal-oriented feedback and spasticity monitoring | ||
| Nijboer et al., 2013 [107] | survey | 145 BCI professionals | disagreement regarding terminology/definitions of BCIs and marketability of different BCIs; ethical concerns reported: informed consent, benefits/risks, team responsibility, consequences, liability/personal identity, and interaction with the media; non-invasive BCIs are estimated as being of low risk (indecisive about invasive BCIs); most BCI professionals hold the view that BCI users are responsible for their actions, while being uncertain regarding issues of liability; the effect of BCI activity on personal identity and self-image on the users are deemed to be unclear | |||
| Nijboer et al., 2014 [108] | survey + focus group | 28 rehabilitation professionals (focus group: n = 28, survey: n = 18) | the professionals ascribed no added value to BCI technology | human problems and practical issues should be taken into consideration | potential BCI users are identified as those who possess intact cognition and have no extant physical or sudden movements (seizures, spasms) which can cause problems | |
| Pedrocchi et al., 2013 [104] | focus group | 14 experts (mostly health care professionals) | reproduction of natural movements, ease of use, capability of multitasking, affordability | |||
| Zickler et al., 2011 [71] | questionnaires | 3 assistive technology experts | setting too complex, setup time to long, long selection procedure, restricted mobility, prone to body movements | improved cap and gel solution | BCI as promising tool for the future |