Abstract
Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems are important to support communication for individuals with complex communication needs. A recent addition to AAC system options is the brain-computer interface (BCI). This study aimed to compare the clinical application of the P300 speller BCI with two more common AAC systems, the EyeLink board, and an eye-tracking camera. Ten participants without communication impairment (18-35 years of age) used each of the three AAC systems to spell three-letter words in one session. Accuracy and speed of letter selection were measured, and questionnaires were administered to evaluate usability, cognitive workload, and user preferences. The results showed that the BCI was significantly less accurate, slower, and with lower usability and higher cognitive workload compared to the eye-tracking camera and EyeLink board. Participants rated the eye-tracking camera as the most favorable AAC system on all measures. The results demonstrated that while the P300 speller BCI was usable by most participants, it did not function as well as the eye-tracking camera and EyeLink board. The clinical use of the BCI is, therefore, currently difficult to justify for most individuals, particularly when considering the substantial cost and setup resourcing needed. https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21291384.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
