ArticleBMC medical ethics2020
What is it like to use a BCI? - insights from an interview study with brain-computer interface users.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consent in flux: when brain‑computer interface embodiment undermines informed consent.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- From technological closed-loop to human-machine trust: a systematic review of ethical and communication challenges of brain-computer interface in elderly care.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Individualized brain-computer interface for people with disabilities: a review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- Does brain-computer interface-based mind reading threaten mental privacy? ethical reflections from interviews with Chinese experts.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Article
- Qualitative studies involving users of clinical neurotechnology: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Adapting Ourselves, Instead of the Environment: An Inquiry into Human Enhancement for Function and Beyond.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2024Article
- Factors influencing the social acceptance of brain-computer interface technology among Chinese general public: an exploratory study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Brain Pioneers and Moral Entanglement: An Argument for Post-trial Responsibilities in Neural-Device Trials.The Hastings Center report · 2024Article
- Factors that influence the adoption of rehabilitation technologies: a multi-disciplinary qualitative exploration.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Brain-computer interfaces, disability, and the stigma of refusal: A factorial vignette study.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2023Article
- Use of Invasive Brain-Computer Interfaces in Pediatric Neurosurgery: Technical and Ethical Considerations.Journal of child neurology · 2023Review
- Analyzing and computing humans by means of the brain using Brain-Computer Interfaces - understanding the user - previous evidence, self-relevance and the user's self-concept as potential superordinate human factors of relevance.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Brain-Computer Interfaces in Neurorecovery and Neurorehabilitation.Seminars in neurology · 2021Article
- Neurotechnology ethics and relational agency.Philosophy compass · 2021Article
- "Mine Works Better": Examining the Influence of Embodiment in Virtual Reality on the Sense of Agency During a Binary Motor Imagery Task With a Brain-Computer Interface.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Optimizing SSVEP-Based BCI System towards Practical High-Speed Spelling.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe neurotechnology behind brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) raises various ethical questions. The ethical literature has pinpointed several issues concerning safety, autonomy, responsibility and accountability, psychosocial identity, consent, privacy and data security. This study aims to assess BCI users' experiences, self-observations and attitudes in their own right and looks for social and ethical implications.
methodsWe conducted nine semi-structured interviews with BCI users, who used the technology for medical reasons. The transcribed interviews were analyzed according to the Grounded Theory coding method.
resultsBCI users perceive themselves as active operators of a technology that offers them social participation and impacts their self-definition. Each of these aspects bears its own opportunities and risks. BCIs can contribute to retaining or regaining human capabilities. At the same time, BCI use contains elements that challenge common experiences, for example when the technology is in conflict with the affective side of BCI users. The potential benefits of BCIs are regarded as outweighing the risks in that BCI use is considered to promote valuable qualities and capabilities. BCI users appreciate the opportunity to regain lost capabilities as well as to gain new ones.
conclusionsBCI users appreciate the technology for various reasons. The technology is highly appreciated in cases where it is beneficial in terms of agency, participation and self-definitions. Rather than questioning human nature, the technology can retain and restore characteristics and abilities which enrich our lives.
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.