ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2018
Neuroethics of Non-primary Brain Computer Interface: Focus on Potential Military Applications.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical implications of neurotechnology in industry-academia partnerships: Insights from patient and research participant interviews.PloS one · 2025Article
- Advanced neuroimaging and criminal interrogation in lie detection.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2024Review
- An Optimal Transport Based Transferable System for Detection of Erroneous Somato-Sensory Feedback from Neural Signals.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Task Transfer Learning for EEG Classification in Motor Imagery-Based BCI System.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2020Article
- [A review of researches on electroencephalogram decoding algorithms in brain-computer interface].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2019Review
- Assessing the Risks Posed by the Convergence of Artificial Intelligence and Biotechnology.Health securityArticle
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
The field of neuroethics has had to adapt rapidly in the face of accelerating technological advancement; a particularly striking example is the realm of Brain-Computer Interface (BCI). A significant source of funding for the development of new BCI technologies has been the United States Department of Defense, and while the predominant focus has been restoration of lost function for those wounded in battle, there is also significant interest in augmentation of function to increase survivability, coordination, and lethality of US combat forces. While restoration of primary motor and sensory function (primary BCI) has been the main focus of research, there has been marked progress in interface with areas of the brain subserving memory and association. Non-Primary BCI has a different subset of potential applications, each of which also carries its own ethical considerations. Given the amount of BCI research funding coming from the Department of Defense, it is particularly important that potential military applications be examined from a neuroethical standpoint.
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.