Back to Search Start Over

Are Brain-Computer Interfaces and Neurofeedback acceptable?

Authors :
Pillette, Léa
Grevet, Elise
Dussard, Claire
Amadieu, Franck
Gasq, David
Pierrieau, Emeline
Py, Jacques
Si-Mohammed, Hakim
George, Nathalie
Jeunet, Camille
Pillette, Léa
Institut de Neurosciences cognitives et intégratives d'Aquitaine (INCIA)
Université Bordeaux Segalen - Bordeaux 2-Université Sciences et Technologies - Bordeaux 1-SFR Bordeaux Neurosciences-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
Institut du Cerveau et de la Moëlle Epinière = Brain and Spine Institute (ICM)
Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière [AP-HP]
Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
Cognition, Langues, Langage, Ergonomie (CLLE)
École pratique des hautes études (EPHE)
Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès (UT2J)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
INSERM, Univ. Toulouse 3
Université de Sherbrooke (UdeS)
Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès (UT2J)
Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille - UMR 9189 (CRIStAL)
Centrale Lille-Université de Lille-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
Université Bordeaux Segalen - Bordeaux 2-Université Sciences et Technologies - Bordeaux 1 (UB)-SFR Bordeaux Neurosciences-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
Institut du Cerveau = Paris Brain Institute (ICM)
Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière [AP-HP]
Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE)
Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès (UT2J)
Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Toulouse Mind & Brain Institut (TMBI)
Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (UT3)
Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (UT3)
Université de Toulouse (UT)
Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (UT3)
Source :
CORTICO 2022, CORTICO 2022, Mar 2022, Grenoble, France
Publication Year :
2022
Publisher :
HAL CCSD, 2022.

Abstract

International audience; The adoption of a technology can be defined as the decision made by a person or a society to accept and use it. It is based on two phases during which the willingness to use that technology is assessed. The first phase corresponds to the evaluation of the acceptability of the technology and takes place before the use while the second phase, the technology acceptance, comes afterwards. Assessing the acceptability of BCIs/NF is of utmost importance as it could provide i) insights on the propensity of people to use these technologies and ii) leads to facilitate their adoption.We reviewed the literature dealing with the acceptability of BCIs/NF and using validated questionnaires and models. Through a reproducible search method, we retrieved a list of 55 main references of acceptability questionnaires and models. Then, we searched Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science to identify the articles in the fields of BCIs/NF that cited these references. We included in our review all the articles reporting experimental results on the acceptability of BCIs/NF that were based on one or several validated acceptability questionnaire(s).Four articles were included in our review. Two of them assessed the acceptability while the others assessed the acceptance of the BCIs. While there are too few articles included to conclude on the acceptability of those technologies, the results are encouraging. BCIs were perceived as useful at 78% by motor impaired individuals who used BCIs for pain management and at 84% by neurotypical individuals who used BCIs to browse an instruction manual. The perceived ease of use varied from 30% to 80%, which could be related to differences in the protocols. Among other factors, the presence of social support appeared to influence the acceptability.

Details

Language :
English
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
CORTICO 2022, CORTICO 2022, Mar 2022, Grenoble, France
Accession number :
edsair.dedup.wf.001..e1a06f2374f363e994975795b35a6e28