Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32749646›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020

Limits of Neural Computation in Humans and Machines.

Roman Taraban

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. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

1 author.

Roman TarabanDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA. roman.taraban@ttu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aicardi et al. (Ethical and social aspects of neurorobotics, Science and Engineering Ethics, 2020) look to neuroscience to mitigate the limitations of current robotics technology. They propose that robotics technology guided by neuroscience has the capacity to create intelligent robots that function with awareness and capacity for abstraction and reasoning. As neurorobotics extends the capability of robotics technology, it introduces new social and ethical concerns, in particular co-opting civilian applications for military use (dual-use), conflicts between industry and the academy (industry-academy partnerships), and data security (data governance). However, here we argue that empirical evidence has shown that human cognition is faulty; therefore there is not a clear motivation to build intelligent robots on a human model; representation of meaning in the brain is not well-understood; therefore neuro-robotics is limited; and to the extent that intelligent robots become a reality, the ethics of robot rights will be of central concern.

Indexed as

NeurosciencesRoboticsBrainCognitionHumansMoralsInformation processingNeural networksProbabilistic modelsRobot rights

Identifiers

PMID32749646

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.