Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41091050›Full record

ArticleThe Hastings Center report

Participant Engagement, Epistemic Injustice, and Early-Phase Implanted Neural Device Research.

Lilyana Levy, Ashley Feinsinger

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Hastings Center report. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lilyana Levy
Ashley Feinsinger

Funding

NeuroEthics of Non-Therapeutic Invasive Human Neurophysiologic ResearchRF1MH121373 · NIMH · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI FEINSINGER, ASHLEY L, POURATIAN, NADER · 2020 to 2020
$1.3M
Dana FoundationNIH HHS RF1MH121373NIMH NIH HHS RF1 MH121373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, participant engagement initiatives in research on implanted neural devices have significantly increased. However, there remains little consensus on the motivations, goals, and best practices for engagement efforts. Drawing on the concept of participatory epistemic injustice, we argue that one core ethical motivation for engagement is epistemic in nature. Based on their subject positions, participants should be key knowledge contributors to implanted neurotech research. Therefore, we argue, participants experience participatory epistemic injustice when their insights do not result in changes to or otherwise influence research protocols, device development, and task design. We contend that engagement can resist this type of injustice only if it establishes robust methods not only to gather but also to actively incorporate participant knowledge into the research and development process.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchProstheses and ImplantsSocial JusticeHumansKnowledgeMotivationbioethicsbrain‐computer interfacesdisabilityepistemic injusticeneuroethicsneurotechnologyparticipant engagement

Identifiers

PMID41091050
PMCPMC12523978

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.