ArticleScience and engineering ethics2019
Identifying Criteria for the Evaluation of the Implications of Brain Reading for Mental Privacy.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does brain-computer interface-based mind reading threaten mental privacy? ethical reflections from interviews with Chinese experts.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Sleuthing subjectivity: a review of covert measures of consciousness.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2025Review
- Wearables for tracking mental state in the classroom: ethical considerations from the literature and high school students.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2025Article
- Ethical considerations for integrating multimodal computer perception and neurotechnology.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Use of Invasive Brain-Computer Interfaces in Pediatric Neurosurgery: Technical and Ethical Considerations.Journal of child neurology · 2023Review
- Eyes on the road: brain computer interfaces and cognitive distraction in traffic.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2023Article
- Article
- Limits of decoding mental states with fMRI.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2022Article
- Forensic Brain-Reading and Mental Privacy in European Human Rights Law: Foundations and Challenges.Neuroethics · 2021Article
- Challenges and Opportunities in Consumer Neuroergonomics.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2021Article
- Brain Recording, Mind-Reading, and Neurotechnology: Ethical Issues from Consumer Devices to Brain-Based Speech Decoding.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Wired Emotions: Ethical Issues of Affective Brain-Computer Interfaces.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Transcending the brain: is there a cost to hacking the nervous system?Brain communications · 2019Review
- Brain leaks and consumer neurotechnology.Nature biotechnology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contemporary brain reading technologies promise to provide the possibility to decode and interpret mental states and processes. Brain reading could have numerous societally relevant implications. In particular, the private character of mind might be affected, generating ethical and legal concerns. This paper aims at equipping ethicists and policy makers with conceptual tools to support an evaluation of the potential applicability and the implications of current and near future brain reading technology. We start with clarifying the concepts of mind reading and brain reading, and the different kinds of mental states that could in principle be read. Subsequently, we devise an evaluative framework that is composed of five criteria-accuracy, reliability, informativity, concealability and enforceability-aimed at enabling a clearer estimation of the degree to which brain reading might be realistically deployed in contexts where mental privacy could be at stake. While accuracy and reliability capture how well a certain method can access mental content, informativity indicates the relevance the obtainable data have for practical purposes. Concealability and enforceability are particularly important for the evaluation of concerns about potential violations of mental privacy and civil rights. The former concerns the degree with which a brain reading method can be concealed from an individual's perception or awareness. The latter regards the extent to which a method can be used against somebody's will. With the help of these criteria, stakeholders can orient themselves in the rapidly developing field of brain reading.
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.