ArticleEthics and information technology2018
Brainjacking in deep brain stimulation and autonomy.
Article in Ethics and information technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing data protections for implantable brain-computer interfaces.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Social media addiction and psychological outcomes: the mediating roles of affect, authenticity, and self-image.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Community perspectives regarding brain-computer interfaces: A cross-sectional study of community-dwelling adults in the UK.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Neuromorphic neuromodulation: Towards the next generation of closed-loop neurostimulation.PNAS nexus · 2024Review
- Merging Minds: The Conceptual and Ethical Impacts of Emerging Technologies for Collective Minds.Neuroethics · 2023Article
- Ethical considerations in the surgical and neuromodulatory treatment of epilepsy.Epilepsy & behavior : E&B · 2022Review
- The present and future of neural interfaces.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2022Article
- [Cybersecurity of brain-computer interfaces].International cybersecurity law review · 2022Article
- A Cybersecure P300-Based Brain-to-Computer Interface against Noise-Based and Fake P300 Cyberattacks.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Deep brain stimulation and electromagnetic interference.Clinical neurology and neurosurgery · 2021Review
- Injecting Information into the Mammalian Cortex: Progress, Challenges, and Promise.The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry · 2021Review
- Technology of deep brain stimulation: current status and future directions.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2021Review
- DBS: a compelling example for ethical and legal reflection-a French perspective on ethical and legal concerns about DBS.Monash bioethics review · 2020Article
- Can self-validating neuroenhancement be autonomous?Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020Article
- Researcher Perspectives on Ethical Considerations in Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Trials.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
'Brainjacking' refers to the exercise of unauthorized control of another's electronic brain implant. Whilst the possibility of hacking a Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) has already been proven in both experimental and real-life settings, there is reason to believe that it will soon be possible to interfere with the software settings of the Implanted Pulse Generators (IPGs) that play a central role in Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) systems. Whilst brainjacking raises ethical concerns pertaining to privacy and physical or psychological harm, we claim that the possibility of brainjacking DBS raises particularly profound concerns about individual autonomy, since the possibility of hacking such devices raises the prospect of third parties exerting influence over the neural circuits underpinning the subject's cognitive, emotional and motivational states. However, although it seems natural to assume that brainjacking represents a profound threat to individual autonomy, we suggest that the implications of brainjacking for individual autonomy are complicated by the fact that technologies targeted by brainjacking often serve to enhance certain aspects of the user's autonomy. The difficulty of ascertaining the implications of brainjacking DBS for individual autonomy is exacerbated by the varied understandings of autonomy in the neuroethical and philosophical literature. In this paper, we seek to bring some conceptual clarity to this area by mapping out some of the prominent views concerning the different dimension of autonomous agency, and the implications of brainjacking DBS for each dimension. Drawing on three hypothetical case studies, we show that there could plausibly be some circumstances in which brainjacking could potentially be carried out in ways that could serve to enhance certain dimensions of the target's autonomy. Our analysis raises further questions about the power, scope, and necessity of obtaining prior consent in seeking to protect patient autonomy when directly interfering with their neural states, in particular in the context of self-regulating closed-loop stimulation devices.
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.