ArticleThe Rutgers journal of bioethics2020
Agency and Accountability: Ethical Considerations for Brain-Computer Interfaces.
Article in The Rutgers journal of bioethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethics of brain-computer interface in mental healthcare.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Neuroethics and Neurorights.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Making the case for sandboxes in implantable neurotechnologies.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Review
- Ethical tightrope: Navigating neuro-ethics in brain computer interface (BCI) technology.Brain & spine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are systems in which a user's real-time brain activity is used to control an external device, such as a prosthetic limb. BCIs have great potential for restoring lost motor functions in a wide range of patients. However, this futuristic technology raises several ethical questions, especially concerning the degree of agency a BCI affords its user and the extent to which a BCI user ought to be accountable for actions undertaken via the device. This paper examines these and other ethical concerns found at each of the three major parts of the BCI system: the sensor that records neural activity, the decoder that converts raw data into usable signals, and the translator that uses these signals to control the movement of an external device.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33178903PMC7654969W3102861771What 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.