Premium
Interprofessional Practitioners' Opinions on Features and Services for an Augmentative and Alternative Communication Brain‐Computer Interface Device
Author(s) -
Hill Katya,
Huggins Jane,
Woodworth Chelsea
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
pmandr
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.617
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1934-1563
pISSN - 1934-1482
DOI - 10.1002/pmrj.12525
Subject(s) - augmentative and alternative communication , brain–computer interface , thematic analysis , computer science , focus group , interface (matter) , coding (social sciences) , multimedia , inter rater reliability , human–computer interaction , psychology , electroencephalography , qualitative research , rating scale , developmental psychology , social science , statistics , mathematics , bubble , marketing , maximum bubble pressure method , psychiatry , sociology , parallel computing , business
Background Brain‐computer interface (BCI) technology is an emerging access method to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices. Objectives To identify, in the early stages of research and development, the perceptions and considerations of interprofessional practice (IPP) team members regarding features and functions for an AAC‐BCI device. Design Qualitative research methodology applying a grounded theory approach using focus groups with a follow‐up survey of participants using NVivo analysis software supporting inductive coding of transcription data. Setting Focus groups held at university, clinic, and industry conference rooms. Discussion was stimulated by a 14‐minute video on an AAC‐BCI device prototype. The prototype hardware and electroencephalography (EEG) gel and dry electrode headgear were on display. Participants Convenience sample of practitioners providing rehabilitation or clinical services to individuals with severe communication disorders and movement impairments who use AAC and/or other assistive technology. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Descriptive statistics using thematic analysis of participants' opinions, input, and feedback on the ideal design for a noninvasive, EEG‐based P300 AAC‐BCI device. Results Interrater and interjudge reliability were at 98% and 100%, respectively, for transcription and researcher coding. Triangulation of multiple data sources supported theme and subtheme identification that included design features, set‐up and calibration, services, and effectiveness. An AAC device with BCI access was unanimously confirmed (100%) as a desirable commercial product. Participants felt that the AAC‐BCI prototype appeared effective for meeting daily communication needs (75%). Results showed that participants' preference on headgear types would change based on accuracy (91%) and rate (83%) of performance. A data‐logging feature was considered beneficial by 100% of participants. Conclusions IPP teams provided critical impressions on design, services, and features for a commercial AAC‐BCI device. Expressed feature and function preferences showed dependence on communication accuracy, rate, and effectiveness. This provides vital guidance for successful clinical deployment.