ArticleBMC medical ethics2019
Using brain-computer interfaces: a scoping review of studies employing social research methods.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Brain computer interfaces for cognitive enhancement in older people - challenges and applications: a systematic review.BMC geriatrics · 2025Pooled it
- EEG-Based BCIs on Motor Imagery Paradigm Using Wearable Technologies: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- 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
- Ethics of brain-computer interface in mental healthcare.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Does brain-computer interface-based mind reading threaten mental privacy? ethical reflections from interviews with Chinese experts.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Design of EEG based thought identification system using EMD & deep neural network.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Implanted cortical neuroprosthetics for speech and movement restoration.Journal of neurology · 2024Review
- Qualitative studies involving users of clinical neurotechnology: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Review
- Factors influencing the social acceptance of brain-computer interface technology among Chinese general public: an exploratory study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Brain-computer interfaces, disability, and the stigma of refusal: A factorial vignette study.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2023Article
- Evaluating the perspectives of those with severe physical impairments while learning BCI control of a commercial augmentative and alternative communication paradigm.Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA · 2023Article
- Identifying Thematics in a Brain-Computer Interface Research.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2023Review
- Neurosurgical Team Acceptability of Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Two-Stage International Cross-Sectional Survey.World neurosurgery · 2022Article
- Article
- The present and future of neural interfaces.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2022Article
- The ethics of AI-assisted warfighter enhancement research and experimentation: Historical perspectives and ethical challenges.Frontiers in big data · 2022Article
- Brain Computer Interfaces and Communication Disabilities: Ethical, Legal, and Social Aspects of Decoding Speech From the Brain.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Brain-Computer Interfaces in Neurorecovery and Neurorehabilitation.Seminars in neurology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid expansion of research on Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) is not only due to the promising solutions offered for persons with physical impairments. There is also a heightened need for understanding BCIs due to the challenges regarding ethics presented by new technology, especially in its impact on the relationship between man and machine. Here we endeavor to present a scoping review of current studies in the field to gain insight into the complexity of BCI use. By examining studies related to BCIs that employ social research methods, we seek to demonstrate the multitude of approaches and concerns from various angles in considering the social and human impact of BCI technology.
methodsFor this scoping review of research on BCIs' social and ethical implications, we systematically analyzed six databases, encompassing the fields of medicine, psychology, and the social sciences, in order to identify empirical studies on BCIs. The search yielded 73 publications that employ quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods.
resultsOf the 73 publications, 71 studies address the user perspective. Some studies extend to consideration of other BCI stakeholders such as medical technology experts, caregivers, or health care professionals. The majority of the studies employ quantitative methods. Recurring themes across the studies examined were general user opinion towards BCI, central technical or social issues reported, requests/demands made by users of the technology, the potential/future of BCIs, and ethical aspects of BCIs.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that while technical aspects of BCIs such as usability or feasibility are being studied extensively, comparatively little in-depth research has been done on the self-image and self-experience of the BCI user. In general there is also a lack of focus or examination of the caregiver's perspective.
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.