Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40575493›Full record

ArticleOxford open neuroscience2025

Brain-Computer Interface tool use and the Contemplation Conundrum: a blueprint of mental action, agency, and control.

Dvija Mehta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oxford open neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Dvija MehtaKing's College, University of Cambridge; Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, University of Cambridge, 16 Mill Ln, Cambridge CB2 1SB, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8192-790X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper approaches the role of intentional action in brain-computer interface (BCI) tool use to allow for an ethical discourse regarding the development and usage of neurotechnology. The exploration of mental actions and user control in BCI tool use brings us closer to understanding the philosophical underpinnings of intentions and agency for BCI-mediated actions. The author presents that under some theories of intentional action, certain BCI-mediated overt movements qualify as both voluntary and unintentional. This plausibly magnifies the ethical considerations surrounding BCI tool use. This problem is referred by the author as the contemplation conundrum. Thus, the paper proposes research scope for the neural correlates of intention formation and the neural correlates of imagination aimed at clarifying implementational control and safeguarding privacy of thought in BCI tool use.

Indexed as

agencyethicsimaginationImplementational controlintentionmental actionNeurotechnologyovert actions

Identifiers

PMID40575493
PMCPMC12199723

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.