Correction: Modeling the acceptability of BCIs for motor rehabilitation after stroke: a large scale study on the general public

In the published article, there was an error in the values presented in Table 4. The corrected Table 4 appears below.

Table 4. Results from general public questionnaire.

Scores for the quantitative variables were continuous from 0 to 10 (strongly disagree to strongly agree).

In the published article, there was an error in the values presented in Table 6. The corrected Table 6 appears below.

Table 6. Table of scores for mediation analysis (only with quantitative factors).

The mediators variable were PU2 and PEOU, the dependant variable was BI2. ^**p < 0.001–BC, bias corrected; DV, dependent variable; MV, mediator variable; PU, perceived usefulness; PEOU, perceived ease of use. Color differences are for ease of reading the table, no special meaning.

In the published article, there was an error in the values reported in Figure 4. Instead of “0.94” and “0.08,” the values should have been “0.92” and 0.09.” The corrected Figure 4 appears below.

In the published article, there was an error in the values presented for BI2 in Table 8. Instead of “0.63,” “0.39,” “0.64,” “0.71,” and “0.74,” the values should have been “0.65,” “0.40,” “0.65,” “0.73,” and “0.75.” The corrected Table 8 appears below.

Table 8. Spearman correlation analyzes for the most significant factors.

p-values adjusted with Bonferroni correction. The color shade is intended to show the value of the coefficient. The closer a coefficient is to 1, the more the color is intense.

In the published article, in the Section 3.4.1. Important factors in each category of our model: Mediation analysis, paragraph 2, there was an error in the results as reported. The sentence: “Figure 4 shows that the BI was mainly influenced by PU2 (effect: 0.94, p < 0.001), the weight of the PEOU being much lower (direct effect: 0.08, standard error SE = 0.02, p < 0.001; indirect effect: 0.65, SE = 0.03, CI = [0.59, 0.71]), i.e., PEOU had a low effect on BI2 but a significant effect on PU2.” Has been corrected to: “Figure 4 shows that the BI was mainly influenced by PU2 (effect: 0.92, p < 0.001), the weight of the PEOU being much lower [direct effect: 0.09, standard error SE = 0.02, p < 0.001; indirect effect: 0.64, SE = 0.03, CI = [0.58, 0.71]], i.e., PEOU had a low effect on BI2 but a significant effect on PU2.”

In the published article, in the Section 3.2.2. Descriptive analysis, paragraph 1, there was an error in the BI2 mean score as reported. The sentence: “Indeed, regarding the target factors, BI2 had a mean of 8.23 (SD = 1.69)” has been corrected to: “Indeed, regarding the target factors, BI2 had a mean of 8.21 (SD = 1.67).”

In the published article, in the Section 3.2.2. Descriptive analysis, paragraph 3, there was an error in the BI2 mean score as reported. The sentence: “Before video 2: PU1 mean = 7.87, SD = 1.63/BI1 mean = 7.88, SD = 1.73. After video 2: PU2 mean = 8.28, SD = 1.57/BI2 mean = 8.23, SD = 1.69.” has been corrected to: “Before video 2: PU1 mean = 7.87, SD = 1.63/BI1 mean = 7.88, SD = 1.73. After video 2: PU2 mean = 8.28, SD = 1.57/BI2 mean = 8.21, SD = 1.67.”

In the published article, in the 4. Discussion Section, paragraph 5, there was an error in the BI2 score as reported. The sentence: “After the second video, participants globally increased their rating and gave PU2 scores of 8.28+/1.57, and BI2 scores of 8.23+/−1.69.” has been corrected to: “After the second video, participants globally increased their rating and gave PU2 scores of 8.28+/1.57, and BI2 scores of 8.21 ± 1.67.”

In the published article, in the Section 3.4.1. Important factors in each category of our model: Mediation analysis, paragraphs 3–6, the following results contained significant errors:

“Concerning the other categories of our model, our results revealed that for the individual differences, autonomy was the most influential factor on BI, but this effect was moderate (c = 0.34, p < 0.001), it equally impacted PU2 and PEOU (respectively, 0.36 and 0.33, with p < 0.001) (quality of the model: R² = 0.87, p = 0.0).

For social influence, subjective norm had a similar and moderate impact on both PU2 and PEOU (respectively, 0.58 and 0.57, with p < 0.001). The influence on BI2 was rather high (c = 0.63, p < 0.001) (quality of the model: R² = 0.86, p < 0.001).

For characteristics of the system, we did two analyse: (i) one with only PEOU as mediator, and factors present before video 2 (PU1 was not included since we chose to focus on PU2); (ii) the second only with PU2 as mediator, and factors present before and after video 2 (PEOU was among these factors since, as shown in Figure 2, it influences PU). (i) shows that visual aesthetics was the most—but weak—influential factor on PEOU (0.38, with p < 0.001). The total effect of visual aesthetics on BI2 was low: C = 0.32 (p < 0.001) (quality of the model: R² = 0.47, p < 0.001). On the other hand (ii) revealed that relevance was the most influential factor on PU2 (0.65, with p < 0.001). Its total effect on BI2 was C = 0.56 (p < 0.001) (quality of the model: R² = 0.87, p = 0.0).

Finally, for facilitating conditions, the variable with most impact was computer playfulness, it equally impacted PU2 and PEOU (respectively, 0.36 and 0.39, with p < 0.001). The influence of computer playfulness on BI2 was moderate (C = 0.41, p < 0.001) (quality of the model: R² = 0.86, p < 0.001). Additional figures of mediation analysis are disponible in Supplementary material 2.”

These paragraphs have now been corrected to:

“Concerning the other categories of our model, our results revealed that for the individual differences, autonomy was the most influential factor on BI, but this effect was moderate (c = 0.34, p < 0.001), it equally impacted PU2 and PEOU (respectively, 0.36 and 0.33, with p < 0.001) (quality of the model: R² = 0.87, p < 0.001).

For social influence, subjective norm had a similar and moderate impact on both PU2 and PEOU (respectively, 0.58 and 0.57, with p < 0.001). The influence on BI2 was rather high (c = 0.63, p < 0.001) (quality of the model: R² = 0.87, p < 0.001).

For characteristics of the system, we did two analyses: (i) one with only PEOU as mediator, and factors present before video 2 (PU1 was not included since we chose to focus on PU2); (ii) the second only with PU2 as mediator, and factors present before and after video 2 (PEOU was among these factors since, as shown in Figure 2, it influences PU). (i) shows that visual aesthetics was the most—but weak—influential factor on PEOU (0.38, with p < 0.001). The total effect of visual aesthetics on BI2 was low: c = 0.32 (p < 0.001) (quality of the model: R² = 0.48, p < 0.001). On the other hand, (ii) revealed that relevance was the most influential factor on PU2 (0.65, with p < 0.001). Its total effect on BI2 was c = 0.54 (p < 0.001) (quality of the model: R² = 0.88, p < 0.001).

Finally, for facilitating conditions, the variable with most impact was computer playfulness, it equally impacted PU2 and PEOU (respectively, 0.36 and 0.39, with p < 0.001). The influence of computer playfulness on BI2 was moderate (c = 0.41, p < 0.001) (quality of the model: R² = 0.87, p < 0.001). Additional figures of mediation analysis are available in Supplementary material 2.”

In the published article, in the 4. Discussion Section, paragraph 3, there was an error in the reported average acceptability level score. The sentence: “A main result of this study is that, globally, acceptability levels in terms of behavioral intention seem to be very high in the general public (with an average score of 8.23/10).” has been corrected to: “A main result of this study is that, globally, acceptability levels in terms of behavioral intention seem to be very high in the general public (with an average score of 8.21/10).”

The original version of this article has been updated.

Generative AI statement

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited and reviewed by: Waldemar Karwowski, University of Central Florida, United States