Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31894206›Full record

ArticleHuman behavior and emerging technologies2019

Human enhancement through the lens of experimental and speculative neurotechnologies.

Wessel Teunisse, Sandra Youssef, Markus Schmidt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human behavior and emerging technologies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Neurochips: Considerations from a neurosurgeon's standpoint.Surgical neurology international · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Wessel TeunisseBiofaction KG Vienna Austria.
Sandra YoussefBiofaction KG Vienna Austria.
Markus SchmidtBiofaction KG Vienna Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9788-4791

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human enhancement deals with improving on and overcoming limitations of the human body and mind. Pharmaceutical compounds that alter consciousness and cognitive performance have been used and discussed for a long time. The prospect of neurotechnological applications such as brain-steered devices or using invasive and noninvasive electromagnetic stimulations of the human brain, however, has received less attention-especially outside of therapeutic practices-and remains relatively unexplored. Reflection and debates about neurotechnology for human enhancement are limited and remain predominantly with neurotech engineers, science-fiction enthusiasts and a small circle of academics in the field of neuroethics. It is well known, and described as the Collingridge dilemma, that at an early stage of development, changes can easily be enacted, but the need for changes can hardly be foreseen. Once the technology is entrenched, opportunities and risks start to materialize, and the need to adapt and change is clearly visible. However, carrying out these changes at such a late stage, in turn, becomes very difficult, tremendously expensive, and sometimes practically impossible. In this manuscript, we compile and categorize an overview of existing experimental and speculative applications of neurotechnologies, with the aim to find out, if these real or diegetic prototypes could be used to better understand the paths these applications are forging. In particular, we will investigate what kind of tools, motivations, and normative goals underpin experimental implementations by neurohackers, speculative designers and artists.

Indexed as

art–scienceDIYEEGhuman enhancementmotivationneurohackingneurotechnologynormalizationspeculative designtDCS

Identifiers

PMID31894206
PMCPMC6919332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.