ArticlePloS one2022
Public attitudes towards neurotechnology: Findings from two experiments concerning Brain Stimulation Devices (BSDs) and Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs).
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting big five personality traits from resting-state EEG connectivity: a connectome predictive modeling study.Brain structure & function · 2026Article
- Perception of brain-computer interface implantation surgery for motor, sensory, and autonomic restoration in spinal cord injury and stroke.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Beyond privacy calculus: public acceptance of non-invasive therapeutic brain-computer interfaces in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Exploring disparities in self-reported knowledge about neurotechnology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Public Perceptions of Neurotechnologies Used to Target Mood, Memory, and Motor Symptoms.Device · 2025Article
- Community perspectives regarding brain-computer interfaces: A cross-sectional study of community-dwelling adults in the UK.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Ethical implications of neurotechnology in industry-academia partnerships: Insights from patient and research participant interviews.PloS one · 2025Article
- "In the spectrum of people who are healthy": Views of individuals at risk of dementia on using neurotechnology for cognitive enhancement.Neuroethics · 2024Article
- Adapting Ourselves, Instead of the Environment: An Inquiry into Human Enhancement for Function and Beyond.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2024Article
- Understanding societal challenges: a NeurotechFrontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Factors influencing the social acceptance of brain-computer interface technology among Chinese general public: an exploratory study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Brain-computer interfaces, disability, and the stigma of refusal: A factorial vignette study.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2023Article
- Article
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
This study contributes to the emerging literature on public perceptions of neurotechnological devices (NTDs) in their medical and non-medical applications, depending on their invasiveness, framing effects, and interindividual differences related to personal needs and values. We conducted two web-based between-subject experiments (2×2×2) using a representative, nation-wide sample of the adult population in Germany. Using vignettes describing how two NTDs, brain stimulation devices (BSDs; NExperiment 1 = 1,090) and brain-computer interfaces (BCIs; NExperiment 2 = 1,089), function, we randomly varied the purpose (treatment vs. enhancement) and invasiveness (noninvasive vs. invasive) of the NTD, and assessed framing effects (variable order of assessing moral acceptability first vs. willingness to use first). We found a moderate moral acceptance and willingness to use BSDs and BCIs. Respondents preferred treatment over enhancement purposes and noninvasive over invasive devices. We also found a framing effect and explored the role of personal characteristics as indicators of personal needs and values (e.g., stress, religiosity, and gender). Our results suggest that the future demand for BSDs or BCIs may depend on the purpose, invasiveness, and personal needs and values. These insights can inform technology developers about the public's needs and concerns, and enrich legal and ethical debates.
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.