Effects of brain–computer interface output modalities on motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Abstract
BackgroundThe relative effects of different brain-computer interface output modalities for post-stroke motor rehabilitation remain unclear.ObjectivesTo synthesize randomized evidence on brain–computer interface-assisted motor rehabilitation after stroke, with emphasis on functional electrical stimulation-triggered and robot-assisted output modalities and the certainty of evidence.MethodsSixteen randomized controlled trials published from January 2020 to October 2025 were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, IEEE Xplore, the Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE. Interventions included brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation, brain-computer interface-controlled robotic rehabilitation, and conventional rehabilitation. The primary outcome was motor recovery measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was performed, and certainty of evidence was assessed using CINeMA.ResultsNo trial directly compared the two active brain-computer interface modalities, resulting in a star-shaped network. Compared with conventional rehabilitation, brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation improved motor recovery (standardized mean difference 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 1.01), whereas brain-computer interface-controlled robotic rehabilitation showed an uncertain effect (0.17, −0.25 to 0.60). The indirect comparison numerically favored brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation over brain-computer interface-controlled robotic rehabilitation, but the confidence interval crossed the null (0.39, −0.22 to 1.01). Certainty was limited by indirectness, imprecision, and heterogeneity.ConclusionBrain–computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation showed a clearer signal of benefit vs. conventional rehabilitation than brain-computer interface-controlled robotic. However, the comparison between the two active modalities relies entirely on indirect evidence from a star-shaped network, has very low confidence, and does not establish comparative superiority. P-score rankings are exploratory pending direct head-to-head trials.
Related
- Comparative efficacy of brain-computer interface training with different feedback modalities for post-stroke upper-limb motor recovery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Effects of different recovery and regeneration modalities on delayed-onset muscle soreness and post-exercise muscle damage markers: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Engineering Neural Interface Materials for Brain–Computer Interfaces: Toward Reliable Neural Information and Functional Recovery
- Integrating Brain-Computer Interface and Neuromorphic Computing for Human Digital Twins
- Brain-writing-BERT for generalizable handwriting brain-computer interface
BibTeX
@article{jiang2026effects,
title = {{Effects of brain–computer interface output modalities on motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis}},
author = {Haoying Jiang and Xinzhao Zhang and Jingying Xu and Yuyao Fu and Na Jin and Yao Xiao and Lili Fang},
journal = {Frontiers in Neuroscience},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fnins.2026.1978309},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2026.1978309},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Effects of brain–computer interface output modalities on motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
AU - Haoying Jiang
AU - Xinzhao Zhang
AU - Jingying Xu
AU - Yuyao Fu
AU - Na Jin
AU - Yao Xiao
AU - Lili Fang
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/27
JO - Frontiers in Neuroscience
DO - 10.3389/fnins.2026.1978309
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2026.1978309
AB - BackgroundThe relative effects of different brain-computer interface output modalities for post-stroke motor rehabilitation remain unclear.ObjectivesTo synthesize randomized evidence on brain–computer interface-assisted motor rehabilitation after stroke, with emphasis on functional electrical stimulation-triggered and robot-assisted output modalities and the certainty of evidence.MethodsSixteen randomized controlled trials published from January 2020 to October 2025 were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, IEEE Xplore, the Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE. Interventions included brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation, brain-computer interface-controlled robotic rehabilitation, and conventional rehabilitation. The primary outcome was motor recovery measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was performed, and certainty of evidence was assessed using CINeMA.ResultsNo trial directly compared the two active brain-computer interface modalities, resulting in a star-shaped network. Compared with conventional rehabilitation, brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation improved motor recovery (standardized mean difference 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 1.01), whereas brain-computer interface-controlled robotic rehabilitation showed an uncertain effect (0.17, −0.25 to 0.60). The indirect comparison numerically favored brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation over brain-computer interface-controlled robotic rehabilitation, but the confidence interval crossed the null (0.39, −0.22 to 1.01). Certainty was limited by indirectness, imprecision, and heterogeneity.ConclusionBrain–computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation showed a clearer signal of benefit vs. conventional rehabilitation than brain-computer interface-controlled robotic. However, the comparison between the two active modalities relies entirely on indirect evidence from a star-shaped network, has very low confidence, and does not establish comparative superiority. P-score rankings are exploratory pending direct head-to-head trials.
SN - 1662-453X
ER -