ArticleScience and engineering ethics2016
Informed Consent in Implantable BCI Research: Identifying Risks and Exploring Meaning.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ethical, legal, and sociocultural considerations in neural device explantation: a systematic review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Brain-computer interfaces: innovations and challenges in the field of cerebral palsy rehabilitation.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
- Advancing data protections for implantable brain-computer interfaces.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Neural Vision Restoration in Ophthalmology.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Consent in flux: when brain‑computer interface embodiment undermines informed consent.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Ethical Guidance for Investigational Implantable Neural Device Studies: Recommendations for Researchers and Research Ethics Committees.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2026Review
- Ethical imperatives in the commercialization of brain-computer interfaces.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Mind the gap: bridging ethical considerations and regulatory oversight in implantable BCI human subjects research.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
- To Explant or not to Explant Neural Implants: an Empirical Study into Deliberations of Dutch Research Ethics Committees.Neuroethics · 2025Article
- Ethical challenges in translating brain-computer interfaces.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Review
- Use of Invasive Brain-Computer Interfaces in Pediatric Neurosurgery: Technical and Ethical Considerations.Journal of child neurology · 2023Review
- Brain-Computer Interfaces in Neurorecovery and Neurorehabilitation.Seminars in neurology · 2021Article
- Treatment Search Fatigue and Informed Consent.AJOB neuroscience · 2021Article
- Wired Emotions: Ethical Issues of Affective Brain-Computer Interfaces.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- What is it like to use a BCI? - insights from an interview study with brain-computer interface users.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Researcher Perspectives on Ethical Considerations in Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Trials.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
- Identifying Criteria for the Evaluation of the Implications of Brain Reading for Mental Privacy.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Embodiment and Estrangement: Results from a First-in-Human "Intelligent BCI" Trial.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implantable brain-computer interface (BCI) technology is an expanding area of engineering research now moving into clinical application. Ensuring meaningful informed consent in implantable BCI research is an ethical imperative. The emerging and rapidly evolving nature of implantable BCI research makes identification of risks, a critical component of informed consent, a challenge. In this paper, 6 core risk domains relevant to implantable BCI research are identified-short and long term safety, cognitive and communicative impairment, inappropriate expectations, involuntariness, affective impairment, and privacy and security. Work in deep brain stimulation provides a useful starting point for understanding this core set of risks in implantable BCI. Three further risk domains-risks pertaining to identity, agency, and stigma-are identified. These risks are not typically part of formalized consent processes. It is important as informed consent practices are further developed for implantable BCI research that attention be paid not just to disclosing core research risks but exploring the meaning of BCI research with potential participants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26497727What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.