Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26240430›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2015

Agency and intervention.

Adina L Roskies

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Understanding the brain by controlling neural activity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Adina L RoskiesDepartment of Philosophy, Dartmouth College, Thornton Hall, Hanover, NH 03755, USA adina.roskies@dartmouth.edu.
Dartmouth College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Novel ways to intervene on brain function raise questions about agency and responsibility. Here, I discuss whether direct brain interventions, and in particular, deep brain stimulation, pose a threat to agency in individual cases, or to our general conceptualization of what it is to be a responsible agent. While I do not currently see evidence that these interventions constitute a global challenge to our concept of agency, they do have the potential to diminish agency in individuals. I consider whether the lack of evidence for a global challenge ratifies our folk conceptions, or is a necessary consequence of them. In closing, I propose that our theoretical understanding of agency and our therapeutic approaches could be improved with a more nuanced, multidimensional view of agency.

Indexed as

Personal AutonomyBrainDeep Brain StimulationElectrocorticographyHumansModels, NeurologicalModels, PsychologicalOptogeneticsTranscranial Magnetic Stimulationagencydeep brain stimulationethicsfolk psychologyinterventionrationality

Identifiers

PMID26240430
PMCPMC4528827
OpenAlexW1856900519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.