Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36819005›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neurorobotics2023

When neuro-robots go wrong: A review.

Muhammad Salar Khan, James L Olds

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neurorobotics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Muhammad Salar KhanInterdisciplinary Neuroscience Program, Center for Biomedical Science and Policy, Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, Arlington, VA, United States.
James L OldsInterdisciplinary Neuroscience Program, Center for Biomedical Science and Policy, Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, Arlington, VA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuro-robots are a class of autonomous machines that, in their architecture, mimic aspects of the human brain and cognition. As such, they represent unique artifacts created by humans based on human understanding of healthy human brains. European Union's Convention on Roboethics 2025 states that the design of all robots (including neuro-robots) must include provisions for the complete traceability of the robots' actions, analogous to an aircraft's flight data recorder. At the same time, one can anticipate rising instances of neuro-robotic failure, as they operate on imperfect data in real environments, and the underlying AI behind such neuro-robots has yet to achieve explainability. This paper reviews the trajectory of the technology used in neuro-robots and accompanying failures. The failures demand an explanation. While drawing on existing explainable AI research, we argue explainability in AI limits the same in neuro-robots. In order to make robots more explainable, we suggest potential pathways for future research.

Indexed as

explainabilityexplainable AI (X-AI)explainable neuro-robotsneuro-robotic failuresneuro-robotic modelsneuro-robotic systemsresponsible neuro-robots

Identifiers

PMID36819005
PMCPMC9935594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.