Talk:Brain–computer interface

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 March 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dispencer17 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Nduc5420.

Hi all! I am a WikiProject Medicine student with a research background in BCIs.

Hello, everyone! I am a medical student participating in a WikiProject Medicine course. My research background is in BCI/neurophysiology and I wanted to do my article edit on BCIs. This Wikipedia page entitled "brain-computer interface" will, I believe, gain more and more traction as the field continues to develop. It will be important for anyone researching BCIs, whether they be in medicine/science or not, to gain an understanding of the history, present, and future of this field.

Areas of this article that I plan to spruce up, in the form of additional information or citations, which lie closest to my realm of research, include:

• 4.1 Invasive BCIs: Communication BCIs have a long history, and I would like to add the oft-cited communication metrics for BCIs (wpm, etc.), and important milestones in recent years, along with appropriate references. There has also been an emergence of interest in using BCIs for stroke rehabilitation, and I hope to add some detail about that here.
• 4.2 Partially invasive BCIs: Many of the field's most recent successes have emerged from this area, in the realm of partially invasive BCIs. I think it would be of use to comment on various speech applications using ECoG, as well as more detail surrounding the use of interventional neurology to deliver devices to the brain, and expand on the benefits/drawbacks of this technique relative to other techniques. These benefits/drawbacks have been addressed in recent review articles and I wish to cite them here.
• 4.3.3 Electroencephalography (EEG)-based brain-computer interfaces: A few systematic reviews have been conducted assessing the utility of EEG-based BCIs in upper extremity rehabilitation post-stroke, which I plan to reference in this section.
• 8 Future Directions: In regards to medical applications of BCIs, I'd like to cite the recently published FDA Guidance on BCIs. This has been proposed as a framework to guide groups attempting to use BCIs in medicine.

I think it would also be of use to include a section on technical limitations to BCIs, perhaps under the 'Human BCI research' header or in between headers 7 and 8. It would be of use to inform readers of electronic, materials, biological, and surgical limitations to implantable BCI systems. As these are currently active areas of engineering, it would be of use to inform the community about specific limitations that have held up the BCI transition to outside the laboratory setting.

Any feedback/collaboration on this would be welcomed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcclanahan (talk • contribs)

Hi @Amcclanahan! Very excited for the updates you're planning, they sound great! Thanks for taking on this article!! I'm also a starting Wikipedian interested in neuroscience and BCIs, so feel free to reach out if you'd like to collaborate sometime. I don't know if you've already checked it out, but just in case: I have found WikiProject Neuroscience to have some really useful resources, and putting your name down as a participant is a good way to spark collaborations too. Have fun with it all! :) Cffisac (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Amcclanahan

Link to draft you're reviewing

Brain–computer interface

Peer review

I utilized Wikipedia's Peer Review template, which breaks peer review down into these categories:

Lead

• The lead section is a great introduction to the topic of brain-computer interface. It is short and to the point, as suggested by the Wiki writing style guide.
• The author implemented small changes that further clarified what modalities are classified as non-invasive, partially invasive, and invasive.
• I think this is a great lead paragraph. I don't recommend any changes to this section.

Content

• Endovascular Section:
  • I appreciated the addition of the Stentrode paragraph in the endovascular section. The author used very recent and relevant research to keep this WikiPage up to date. This is such a new and forth coming field so I imagine there will be many additions to this page over time.
  • The additions are well-cited and linked appropriately to their respective Wiki Pages when needed.
  • I do find this section to be very medical terminology heavy, however, I believe that is unavoidable due to the complex nature of this topic. If possible, it may be beneficial to try to keep wording to easily digestible material for the general public - but I recognize how difficult this is with this topic.
• ECoG Section:
  • Again, the author added groundbreaking and recent research to the article to keep it up to date.
  • I think this was a nice update that highlights how far the medical community has come with this type of technology.
• EEG Section:
  • In this section specifically the author added a systemic review of randomized controlled trials - which is the gold standard for citations for Wiki.
  • I think this was a useful addition to this section to summarize the efficacy and potential of this technology.

Tone and Balance

• The author added some clarification to the wording in the communication section that helps the flow of the section.

Sources and Resources

• The author used many peer reviewed sources to back up his statements.
• As this is a new and emerging topic, he tried to use systemic reviews when possible.
• Since this is such an evolving field, the author properly cited primary research when necessary to keep the article up to date.

Organization

• I think the Wiki Page is well organized.
• I don't have any recommended changes.

Images and Media

• I really appreciated the hand-drawn image that the author added to the article. It very simply shows the differences between the modalities of BCIs.
• This was a great addition to the article and is visually pleasing to audiences.

Overall impressions

• The authors significantly contributed to this article's development.
• He tried his best to use systematic reviews and text book material, but this is such a new and evolving field that required primary sources to show the progress the medical community has made in recent years.
• I believe it may be hard for the lay person to read this entire article, but I also think that is due to the complexity of the topic.
• The author used appropriate linking and clarification to keep the article as easy to read as possible.

KevP25 (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)