Comparison of Point-and-Click Performance Between the Brainfingers BCI and the Mouse.

Overview

1. Department of Informatics and Telecommunications, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15784 Athens, Greece; (D.V.); (G.K.)

Abstract

This study quantitatively evaluates the performance of a non-invasive hybrid brain–computer interface (BCI) compared to a conventional mouse in pointing (point-and-click) tasks. A commercial wearable BCI (Brainfingers), based on electromyography (EMG) and electrooculography (EOG) signals with low-level electroencephalography (EEG) components, was assessed against a Microsoft Optical Mouse using ISO/TS 9241-411-based one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) target acquisition tasks. Pointer coordinates were recorded and analyzed using Fitts’ law metrics. A total of 48 non-disabled participants completed the experiments. The results reveal significant performance differences between the two input devices. The BCI device exhibits substantially lower performance than the mouse across the reported Fitts’ law measures. Mean throughput was 0.35 bits/s for the BCI and 6.03 bits/s for the mouse in the 1D tests and 0.43 bits/s for the BCI and 5.17 bits/s for the mouse in the 2D tests. Despite the BCI’s low performance and although the present experiments involved non-disabled participants, the findings, considered alongside the prior literature on Brainfingers and non-invasive BCIs for computer access, suggest that the device may still have assistive technology value for users with severe motor impairments.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.

Code

No file of the authors' code could be read here: it is described below, and read at its source.

Tracing map

Proposed by the machine: these links were found in the paper and verified at the source, without human review. The map will receive a Zenodo DOI once one of the paper's authors has validated it with their ORCID.

What the map holds:

• 1 repository of the authors' code, each at its verified commit, with its license and how the link was found in the paper;
• 0 scripts, each with its path and the digest of its content;
• no match between paragraphs and code yet;
• neither the text of the paper nor the code itself.

Its JSON (tracing-map.json) is deposited on Zenodo with its DOI once the map is validated.

Data

No dataset and no data link were found in the paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.

Versions

The history of this record: each version stored by the harvester or made by a correction of its authors or of the maintainers of its code, and what changed in its facts. The texts of the paper (its abstract, its availability statements) are not part of it; versions that changed only those are not listed.

Version 1, 30 September 2026: the first record

Recorded: type, language, journal, volume, issue, pages, dates, 3 authors, 7 keywords, 10 MeSH terms, 1 funder, 42 references.

Cite

This paper

Pino, A., Vrailas, D., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2026). Comparison of Point-and-Click Performance Between the Brainfingers BCI and the Mouse. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 26(9), 2777. https://doi.org/10.3390/s26092777

The tracing map gets a citation of its own once an author has validated it and it has a DOI.

Similar papers

The papers with a page that share the most with this one: the tools found in their code, their categories, datasets, cited references and authors, the rarest counting most.

[1] doi:10.1038/s41597-026-07809-9 [code]

EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI) dataset for directional word recognition.

Journal: Scientific data

In common: other, EEG, 2 references

[2] doi:10.3390/s26134004 [code]

Automated Anxiety Detection System Integrating a Brain-Computer Interface for Neurofeedback Applications.

Journal: Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)

In common: EEG, 2 references

[3] doi:

Effect of Emotional States on EEG-Based Biometric Identification: A Comparative Study of Classifiers

Journal: Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)

In common: EEG, 2 references

[4] doi:10.1186/s13040-026-00560-2

Adaptive drift-aware multi-stage deep learning framework for EEG-based schizophrenia diagnosis.

Journal: BioData mining

In common: EEG, 2 references

[5] doi:10.3389/fnhum.2026.1811759

MCFANet: a multi-class fusion attention network for motor imagery EEG classification.

Journal: Frontiers in human neuroscience

In common: EEG, 2 references

[6] doi:10.3390/bios16070394

Hybrid Edge-Cloud Asymmetric Analytics for Portable Multimodal BCI Biosensors.

Journal: Biosensors

In common: other, EEG, 1 reference

[7] doi:10.3390/bios16080437 [code]

Deep Learning for Ear-EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interface: A Systematic Comparison and Design Insights.

Journal: Biosensors

In common: EEG, 1 reference

[8] doi:10.1016/j.mex.2026.103913

Multi-source domain generalization with few-shot fine-tuning (MSDG-FT) for cross-dataset EEG mental workload classification.

Journal: MethodsX

In common: EEG, 1 reference

[9] doi:10.1038/s41598-026-68186-2 [code]

NeuroStream: spectral-spatio-temporal deep learning for visual stimulus classification from EEG.

Journal: Scientific reports

In common: EEG, 1 reference

[10] doi:10.1038/s41598-026-56070-y [code]

SSDLabeler: realistic semi-synthetic data generation for multi-label artifact classification in EEG.

Journal: Scientific reports

In common: EEG, 1 reference

Contribute

The authors of this paper can claim it, correct its record and validate its tracing map, and the maintainers of its code (its owner, or a public member of its organization) correct what it says of their repository; anyone signed in can ask for its removal. Every request goes to OSCR's own machine, which answers it; your account page follows them.

Request its removal

To ask OSCR to remove this record, the copies of its authors' scripts or its tracing map, use the removal request page: signed in, you say who you are, what to remove and why, then review and confirm the request. Published rules decide every request (how).

Discussion: questions and error reports about this paper and its code, from signed-in readers and its authors. It opens with sign-in.

Reproductions: reports from readers who ran the authors' code: what they reproduced, with which environment, commit and data. It opens with sign-in.

Activity: what happens around this paper: new versions of its record, its map's validation, discussions and reproductions. It opens with sign-in.