ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020
Correcting the Brain? The Convergence of Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, Psychiatry, and Artificial Intelligence.
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. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-assisted early screening, diagnosis, and intervention for autism in young children.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Review
- Neuroethics and AI ethics: a proposal for collaboration.BMC neuroscience · 2024Review
- Ethical considerations for integrating multimodal computer perception and neurotechnology.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- The impact of artificial intelligence on the person-centred, doctor-patient relationship: some problems and solutions.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Review
- AI-Based Prediction and Prevention of Psychological and Behavioral Changes in Ex-COVID-19 Patients.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Review
- Editorial: Shaping Ethical Futures in Brain-Based and Artificial Intelligence Research.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Keeping the "Human in the Loop" in the Age of Artificial Intelligence : Accompanying Commentary for "Correcting the Brain?" by Rainey and Erden.Science and engineering ethics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The incorporation of neural-based technologies into psychiatry offers novel means to use neural data in patient assessment and clinical diagnosis. However, an over-optimistic technologisation of neuroscientifically-informed psychiatry risks the conflation of technological and psychological norms. Neurotechnologies promise fast, efficient, broad psychiatric insights not readily available through conventional observation of patients. Recording and processing brain signals provides information from 'beneath the skull' that can be interpreted as an account of neural processing and that can provide a basis to evaluate general behaviour and functioning. But it ought not to be forgotten that the use of such technologies is part of a human practice of neuroscience informed psychiatry. This paper notes some challenges in the integration of neural technologies into psychiatry and suggests vigilance particularly in respect to normative challenges. In this way, psychiatry can avoid a drift toward reductive technological approaches, while nonetheless benefitting from promising advances in neuroscience and technology.
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.