ArticleNeuroethics2023
The Mystery of Mental Integrity: Clarifying Its Relevance to Neurotechnologies.
Article in Neuroethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Neuroethical Perspectives on Deep Brain Stimulation and Neuromodulation for Neuropsychiatric Disorders: A Scoping Review of the Past 10 Years.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Ethical gaps in closed-loop neurotechnology: a scoping review.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- An Intuitive, Abductive Argument for a Right against Mental Interference.The journal of ethics · 2025Article
- Techno-emotional projection in human-GenAI relationships: a psychological and ethical conceptual perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Right to mental integrity and neurotechnologies: implications of the extended mind thesis.Journal of medical ethics · 2024Article
- Decentralising the Self - Ethical Considerations in Utilizing Decentralised Web Technology for Direct Brain Interfaces.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- When Two Become One: Singular Duos and the Neuroethical Frontiers of Brain-to-Brain Interfaces.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2024Article
- Chilean Supreme Court ruling on the protection of brain activity: neurorights, personal data protection, and neurodata.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of mental integrity is currently a significant topic in discussions concerning the regulation of neurotechnologies. Technologies such as deep brain stimulation and brain-computer interfaces are believed to pose a unique threat to mental integrity, and some authors have advocated for a legal right to protect it. Despite this, there remains uncertainty about what mental integrity entails and why it is important. Various interpretations of the concept have been proposed, but the literature on the subject is inconclusive. Here we consider a number of possible interpretations and argue that the most plausible one concerns neurotechnologies that bypass one's reasoning capacities, and do so specifically in ways that reliably lead to alienation from one's mental states. This narrows the scope of what constitutes a threat to mental integrity and offers a more precise role for the concept to play in the ethical evaluation of neurotechnologies.
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.