ArticleScience and engineering ethics2018
Keeping Disability in Mind: A Case Study in Implantable Brain-Computer Interface Research.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conflicting Interests and New Frontiers: A Role for Virtue Ethics in Cutting Edge Brain Research with Humans.Neuroethics · 2025Article
- Developer perspectives on the ethics of AI-driven neural implants: a qualitative study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Ethical issues raised by incorporating personalized language models into brain-computer interface communication technologies: a qualitative study of individuals with neurological disease.Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology · 2024Article
- The science and engineering behind sensitized brain-controlled bionic hands.Physiological reviews · 2022Review
- Projections and the Potential Societal Impact of the Future of Neurotechnologies.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- Article
- Towards Including End-Users in the Design of Prosthetic Hands: Ethical Analysis of a Survey of Australians with Upper-Limb Difference.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Development of a Smartphone App for Informal Carers of People With Cancer: Processes and Learnings.JMIR formative research · 2019Article
- Using brain-computer interfaces: a scoping review of studies employing social research methods.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Highly Interactive Brain-Computer Interface Based on Flicker-Free Steady-State Motion Visual Evoked Potential.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Views of stakeholders at risk for dementia about deep brain stimulation for cognition.Brain stimulationArticle
- Progress in Neuroengineering for brain repair: New challenges and open issues.Brain and neuroscience advancesArticle
- Participant Engagement, Epistemic Injustice, and Early-Phase Implanted Neural Device Research.The Hastings Center reportArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) research is an interdisciplinary area of study within Neural Engineering. Recent interest in end-user perspectives has led to an intersection with user-centered design (UCD). The goal of user-centered design is to reduce the translational gap between researchers and potential end users. However, while qualitative studies have been conducted with end users of BCI technology, little is known about individual BCI researchers' experience with and attitudes towards UCD. Given the scientific, financial, and ethical imperatives of UCD, we sought to gain a better understanding of practical and principled considerations for researchers who engage with end users. We conducted a qualitative interview case study with neural engineering researchers at a center dedicated to the creation of BCIs. Our analysis generated five themes common across interviews. The thematic analysis shows that participants identify multiple beneficiaries of their work, including other researchers, clinicians working with devices, device end users, and families and caregivers of device users. Participants value experience with device end users, and personal experience is the most meaningful type of interaction. They welcome (or even encourage) end-user input, but are skeptical of limited focus groups and case studies. They also recognize a tension between creating sophisticated devices and developing technology that will meet user needs. Finally, interviewees espouse functional, assistive goals for their technology, but describe uncertainty in what degree of function is "good enough" for individual end users. Based on these results, we offer preliminary recommendations for conducting future UCD studies in BCI and neural engineering.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.