Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32533446›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020

Citizen Neuroscience: Brain-Computer Interface Researcher Perspectives on Do-It-Yourself Brain Research.

Stephanie Naufel, Eran Klein

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 50% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephanie NaufelDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA. steph.n.thacker@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5682-9000
Eran KleinCenter for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering and Department of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0132-5777
Northwestern University · USOregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

National Science Foundation (US) EEC#1028725.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Devices that record from and stimulate the brain are currently available for consumer use. The increasing sophistication and resolution of these devices provide consumers with the opportunity to engage in do-it-yourself brain research and contribute to neuroscience knowledge. The rise of do-it-yourself (DIY) neuroscience may provide an enriched fund of neural data for researchers, but also raises difficult questions about data quality, standards, and the boundaries of scientific practice. We administered an online survey to brain-computer interface (BCI) researchers to gather their perspectives on DIY brain research. While BCI researcher concerns about data quality and reproducibility were high, the possibility of expert validation of data generated by citizen neuroscientists mitigated concerns. We discuss survey results in the context of an established ethical framework for citizen science, and describe the potential of constructive collaboration between citizens and researchers to both increase data collection and advance understanding of how the brain operates outside the confines of the lab.

Indexed as

Brain-Computer InterfacesNeurosciencesBrainHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesBrain–computer interfaceBrain–machine interfaceCitizen neuroscienceCitizen scienceEEGTDCS

Identifiers

PMID32533446
OpenAlexW3034294883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.