Brain-computer interface (BCI) technology provides objective and quantitative biological assessment methods for the rehabilitation assessment of patients with neurological dysfunction by acquiring and decoding neural activity signals, thereby overcoming the limitations of traditional assessments that rely on behavioral performance. With the rapid development of BCI technologies, their applications in the assessment of disorders of consciousness, motor dysfunction, dysphagia, cognitive impairment, speech disorders, and affective disorders have continued to expand. However, current challenges remain, including inconsistent technical standards, incomplete evaluation systems, insufficient clinical evidence, and pressing ethical and safety issues. To standardize the clinical application of BCI in rehabilitation assessment, the Professional Committee of Brain-Computer Interface and Rehabilitation of the Chinese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine convened a multidisciplinary expert panel comprising specialists in rehabilitation medicine, neuroscience, and biomedical engineering. Based on the latest national and international research advances and clinical experience, this expert consensus was developed through extensive discussion and consultation. This consensus systematically elaborates on the technical basis, principles, signal processing protocols, domain-specific assessment indicator systems, standardized operating procedures, ethical and safety guarantees, and implementation pathways for BCI rehabilitation assessment. It clearly defines the principles of technical selection (prioritizing non-invasive methods), multidisciplinary collaboration mechanisms, and talent training systems. It aims to provide scientific guidance for clinical practice, research and innovation, education and training, and industry standardization, thereby promoting the development of rehabilitation assessment toward precision, individualization, and objectivity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
WU et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: