There are invasive and non-invasive BCI capabilities, and their ranges vary. E.g. Neural Lace is a surgically invasive BCI capability. A dry electrode EEG cap i

There are invasive and non-invasive BCI capabilities, and their ranges vary. E.g. Neural Lace is a surgically invasive BCI capability. A dry electrode EEG cap is a noninvasive BCI sensor. If a noninvasive BCI capability can write to a brain, is it a Directed Energy Weapon? And so I suspect the applications maybe limited. Certain states don't even allow video biometrics in banks, casinos, or prisons FWIU. IDK much about eye tracking. I know that there exist patients with ocular movement disorders like amblyopia/strabismus/exotropia and nystagmus. The equitability of eye-tracking only interfaces is limited if they do not work with eye movement disorders, which are more common than not having at least one hand. If the system must detect which eye movement disorder a patient has in order to work, is it 1) doing automated diagnosis, which is unlikely to have 100% accuracy; and 2) handling sensitive PHI Personal Health Information without consent, and 3) capturing biometric information without consent. I understand that (when people have consented), eye tracking experiments yield helpful UX design research data like UI heatmaps that can help developers make apps more accessible. Practically, how do you turn off the eye tracking component and use the app without the fancy gestural HID; and if one is suddenly distracted by something else in the FOV, is there unintentional input? /? awesome eye tracking: https://www.google.com/search?q=awesome+eye+tracking https://www.google.com/search?q=awesome+eye+tracking awesome-gaze-estimation: https://github.com/cvlab-uob/Awesome-Gaze-Estimation https://github.com/cvlab-uob/Awesome-Gaze-Estimation Community response to a benign opt-in art project that merges eye tracking data from viewers might be ethically studied in estimating viability of a competing BCI HID approach.