TYPOLOGY OF STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS IN THE DESIGN OF BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/uad.2026.2.38Keywords:
brain-computer interface, typology, structural solutions, ergonomics, neurotechnology, invasiveness, form generationAbstract
The article examines the typology of structural solutions in the development of brain-computer interfaces (BCI) as an interdisciplinary field that integrates neuroscience, engineering and design. The relevance of the study is determined by the rapid development of neurotechnologies, the expansion of their practical applications, and the need to establish comprehensive approaches to designing systems that enable direct interaction with the human nervous system. The aim of the research is to systematize the main structural solutions of BCI and to identify typological features that can be applied in design practice for creating efficient, safe, and user-friendly interfaces.
The methodological framework is based on morphological analysis, comparative study of contemporary BCI systems, and typological modeling of structural characteristics. The study covers non-invasive, minimally invasive, and invasive systems, which differ in signal acquisition methods, user contact characteristics, form factor, manufacturing technologies, and functional purposes. It is established that modern BCI design is determined not only by technical parameters of signal processing but also by key design factors such as ergonomics, biocompatibility, modularity, anatomical conformity, adaptability to individual user characteristics, and semantic neutrality of form.
As a result of the research, a generalized typology of structural solutions for BCI is proposed, encompassing three main categories: invasive, minimally invasive, and non-invasive systems. It is demonstrated that each category has its own logic of form generation, material and technological constraints, and specific design organization. Special attention is given to the analysis of materials, including biocompatible metals, polymers, flexible substrates, and textile-based solutions, which significantly influence user comfort and long-term functionality. It is determined that the structural configuration of BCI must ensure a balance between system performance, safety, aesthetic acceptability, and the possibility of personalization.
The practical significance of the study lies in the applicability of the proposed typology as a methodological framework for further design of brain-computer interfaces. The obtained results can be used in the development of new devices for rehabilitation, communication, and research purposes.
References
Vidal J. J. Toward direct brain-computer communication. Annual review of biophysics and bioengineering. 1973. Vol. 2, no. 1. P. 157–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.bb.02.060173.001105
Eppinger S. D., Ulrich K. T. Product design and development. McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2003. 464 p.
Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control / J. R. Wolpaw et al. Clinical neurophysiology. 2002. Vol. 113, no. 6. P. 767–791. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1388-2457(02)00057-3
ISO 9241-210:2019. Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2019. 33 p.
Nicolas-Alonso L. F., Gomez-Gil J. Brain computer interfaces, a review. Sensors. 2012. Vol. 12, no. 2. P. 1211–1279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s120201211
Lopez-Gordo M., Sanchez-Morillo D., Valle F. Dry EEG electrodes. Sensors. 2014. Vol. 14, no. 7. P. 12847–12870. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s140712847
Schalk G., Leuthardt E. C. Brain-Computer interfaces using electrocorticographic signals. IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering. 2011. Vol. 4. P. 140–154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/rbme.2011.2172408
Lacour S. P., Courtine G., Guck J. Materials and technologies for soft implantable neuroprostheses. Nature reviews materials. 2016. Vol. 1, no. 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/natrevmats.2016.63
Minimally invasive endovascular stent-electrode array for high-fidelity, chronic recordings of cortical neural activity / T. J. Oxley et al. Nature biotechnology. 2016. Vol. 34, no. 3. P. 320–327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3428
Zander T. O., Kothe C. Towards passive brain–computer interfaces: applying brain–computer interface technology to human–machine systems in general. Journal of neural engineering. 2011. Vol. 8, no. 2. P. 025005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/025005
Chen R., Canales A., Anikeeva P. Neural recording and modulation technologies. Nature reviews materials. 2017. Vol. 2, no. 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/natrevmats.2016.93
Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? / M. J. Farah et al. Nature reviews neuroscience. 2004. Vol. 5, no. 5. P. 421–425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1390
Musk E. An integrated brain-machine interface platform with thousands of channels. Journal of medical internet research. 2019. Vol. 21, no. 10. P. e16194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/16194
Story M. F. Maximizing usability: the principles of universal design. Assistive technology. 1998. Vol. 10, no. 1. P. 4–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.1998.10131955
Cogan S. F. Neural stimulation and recording electrodes. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering. 2008. Vol. 10. P. 275–309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.bioeng.10.061807.160518
Casson A. J. Wearable EEG and beyond. Biomedical engineering letters. 2019. Vol. 9, no. 1. P. 53–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13534-018-00093-6
