ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2024
The ethical significance of user-control in AI-driven speech-BCIs: a narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing neuroengineering with Neuromorphic Twins.Nature communications · 2026Review
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AI-driven brain-computed interfaces aimed at restoring speech for individuals living with locked-in-syndrome are paired with ethical implications for user's autonomy, privacy and responsibility. Embedding options for sufficient levels of user-control in speech-BCI design has been proposed to mitigate these ethical challenges. However, how user-control in speech-BCIs is conceptualized and how it relates to these ethical challenges is underdetermined. In this narrative literature review, we aim to clarify and explicate the notion of user-control in speech-BCIs, to better understand in what way user-control could operationalize user's autonomy, privacy and responsibility and explore how such suggestions for increasing user-control can be translated to recommendations for the design or use of speech-BCIs. First, we identified types of user control, including executory control that can protect voluntariness of speech, and guidance control that can contribute to semantic accuracy. Second, we identified potential causes for a loss of user-control, including contributions of predictive language models, a lack of ability for neural control, or signal interference and external control. Such a loss of user control may have implications for semantic accuracy and mental privacy. Third we explored ways to design for user-control. While embedding initiation signals for users may increase executory control, they may conflict with other aims such as speed and continuity of speech. Design mechanisms for guidance control remain largely conceptual, similar trade-offs in design may be expected. We argue that preceding these trade-offs, the overarching aim of speech-BCIs needs to be defined, requiring input from current and potential users. Additionally, conceptual clarification of user-control and other (ethical) concepts in this debate has practical relevance for BCI researchers. For instance, different concepts of inner speech may have distinct ethical implications. Increased clarity of such concepts can improve anticipation of ethical implications of speech-BCIs and may help to steer design decisions.
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.