Mohammad H. Mahrooz, Farrokh Fattahzadeh, Shahriar Gharibzadeh
{"title":"解码辩论:脑机接口与神经反馈比较研究》。","authors":"Mohammad H. Mahrooz, Farrokh Fattahzadeh, Shahriar Gharibzadeh","doi":"10.1007/s10484-023-09601-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) and Neurofeedback (NF) both rely on the technology to capture brain activity. However, the literature lacks a clear distinction between the two, with some scholars categorizing NF as a special case of BCI while others view BCI as a natural extension of NF, or classify them as fundamentally different entities. This ambiguity hinders the flow of information and expertise among scholars and can cause confusion. To address this issue, we conducted a study comparing BCI and NF from two perspectives: the background and context within which BCI and NF developed, and their system design. We utilized Functional Flow Block Diagram (FFBD) as a system modelling approach to visualize inputs, functions, and outputs to compare BCI and NF at a conceptual level. Our analysis revealed that while NF is a subset of the biofeedback method that requires data from the brain to be extracted and processed, the device performing these tasks is a BCI system by definition. Therefore, we conclude that NF should be considered a specific application of BCI technology. By clarifying the relationship between BCI and NF, we hope to facilitate better communication and collaboration among scholars in these fields.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47506,"journal":{"name":"Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback","volume":"49 1","pages":"47 - 53"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decoding the Debate: A Comparative Study of Brain-Computer Interface and Neurofeedback\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad H. Mahrooz, Farrokh Fattahzadeh, Shahriar Gharibzadeh\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10484-023-09601-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) and Neurofeedback (NF) both rely on the technology to capture brain activity. However, the literature lacks a clear distinction between the two, with some scholars categorizing NF as a special case of BCI while others view BCI as a natural extension of NF, or classify them as fundamentally different entities. This ambiguity hinders the flow of information and expertise among scholars and can cause confusion. To address this issue, we conducted a study comparing BCI and NF from two perspectives: the background and context within which BCI and NF developed, and their system design. We utilized Functional Flow Block Diagram (FFBD) as a system modelling approach to visualize inputs, functions, and outputs to compare BCI and NF at a conceptual level. Our analysis revealed that while NF is a subset of the biofeedback method that requires data from the brain to be extracted and processed, the device performing these tasks is a BCI system by definition. Therefore, we conclude that NF should be considered a specific application of BCI technology. By clarifying the relationship between BCI and NF, we hope to facilitate better communication and collaboration among scholars in these fields.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47506,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"47 - 53\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10484-023-09601-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10484-023-09601-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Decoding the Debate: A Comparative Study of Brain-Computer Interface and Neurofeedback
Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) and Neurofeedback (NF) both rely on the technology to capture brain activity. However, the literature lacks a clear distinction between the two, with some scholars categorizing NF as a special case of BCI while others view BCI as a natural extension of NF, or classify them as fundamentally different entities. This ambiguity hinders the flow of information and expertise among scholars and can cause confusion. To address this issue, we conducted a study comparing BCI and NF from two perspectives: the background and context within which BCI and NF developed, and their system design. We utilized Functional Flow Block Diagram (FFBD) as a system modelling approach to visualize inputs, functions, and outputs to compare BCI and NF at a conceptual level. Our analysis revealed that while NF is a subset of the biofeedback method that requires data from the brain to be extracted and processed, the device performing these tasks is a BCI system by definition. Therefore, we conclude that NF should be considered a specific application of BCI technology. By clarifying the relationship between BCI and NF, we hope to facilitate better communication and collaboration among scholars in these fields.
期刊介绍:
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback is an international, interdisciplinary journal devoted to study of the interrelationship of physiological systems, cognition, social and environmental parameters, and health. Priority is given to original research, basic and applied, which contributes to the theory, practice, and evaluation of applied psychophysiology and biofeedback. Submissions are also welcomed for consideration in several additional sections that appear in the journal. They consist of conceptual and theoretical articles; evaluative reviews; the Clinical Forum, which includes separate categories for innovative case studies, clinical replication series, extended treatment protocols, and clinical notes and observations; the Discussion Forum, which includes a series of papers centered around a topic of importance to the field; Innovations in Instrumentation; Letters to the Editor, commenting on issues raised in articles previously published in the journal; and select book reviews. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback is the official publication of the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.