Psychosocial and Ethical Aspects in Non-Invasive EEG-Based BCI Research—A Survey Among BCI Users and BCI Professionals

In this paper, the results of a pilot interview study with 19 subjects participating in an EEG-based non-invasive brain–computer interface (BCI) research study on stroke rehabilitation and assistive technology and of a survey among 17 BCI professionals are presented and discussed in the light of ethical, legal, and social issues in research with human subjects. Most of the users were content with study participation and felt well informed. Negative aspects reported include the long and cumbersome preparation procedure, discomfort with the cap and the wet electrodes, problems concerning BCI control, and strains during the training sessions. In addition, some users reflected on issues concerning system security. When asked for morally problematic issues in this field of non-invasive BCI research, the BCI professionals stressed the need for correct information transfer, the obligation to avoid unrealistic expectations in study participants, the selection of study participants, benefits and strains of participation, BCI illiteracy, the possibility of detrimental brain modifications induced by BCI use, and problems that may arise at the end of the trials. Furthermore, privacy issues were raised. Based on the results obtained, psychosocial and ethical aspects of EEG-based non-invasive BCI research are discussed and possible implications for future research addressed.

[1]  B. Gandevia,et al.  DECLARATION OF HELSINKI. , 1964, The Medical journal of Australia.

[2]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[3]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1992 .

[4]  Neurowissenschaften und Menschenbild , 2005 .

[5]  B. Dobkin.  Brain–computer interface technology as a tool to augment plasticity and outcomes for neurological rehabilitation , 2007, The Journal of physiology.

[6]  Guglielmo Tamburrini,et al.  Ethical monitoring of brain-machine interfaces , 2007, AI & SOCIETY.

[7]  G. Tamburrini.  Brain to Computer Communication: Ethical Perspectives on Interaction Models , 2009 .

[8]  Jeremy Hill,et al.  A note on ethical aspects of BCI , 2009, Neural Networks.

[9]  Tadayoshi Kohno,et al.  Neurosecurity: security and privacy for neural devices. , 2009, Neurosurgical focus.

[10]  P. L. Emiliani,et al.  Assistive technology from adapted equipment to inclusive environments : AAATE 2009 , 2009 .

[11]  Martin Maguire,et al.  User-Centred Requirements Handbook , 2010 .

[12]  J. Huggins,et al.  What would brain-computer interface users want? Opinions and priorities of potential users with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , 2011, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis : official publication of the World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Motor Neuron Diseases.

[13]  E. Hildt.  Brain-Computer Interaction and Medical Access to the Brain: Individual, Social and Ethical Implications , 2011 .

[14]  Gerd Grübler,et al.  Beyond the responsibility gap. Discussion note on responsibility and liability in the use of brain-computer interfaces , 2011, AI & SOCIETY.

[15]  Jane E Huggins,et al.  Barriers to and mediators of brain–computer interface user acceptance: focus group findings , 2012, Ergonomics.

[16]  B. Allison,et al.  The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders’ Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing , 2011, Neuroethics.