Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42534420›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neurology

Neurotechnology through the lens of users and as a novel field for society.

Danesh Ashouri, Ludwig Weh, Vera Borrmann, Christopher Coenen, Eva Maria Kraft, Viviana Loufs, Wenzel Mehnert, Paula Muhr, Oliver Müller, Melike Şahinol and 7 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neurology. 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

17 authors.

Danesh Ashouri *BrainLinks-BrainTools Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Ludwig Weh *Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Vera BorrmannHuman-Technology Interaction Lab, Department of Neurosurgery, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany.
Christopher CoenenInstitute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Eva Maria KraftRAUM für TANZ KG, Vienna, Austria.
Viviana LoufsBrandenburg University of Technology in Cottbus-Senftenberg, Cottbus, Germany.
Wenzel MehnertAustrian Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria.
Paula MuhrDigital Design Department, Brand University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany.
Oliver MüllerDepartment of Philosophy, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Melike ŞahinolScience, Technology and Society (STS), Orient-Institute Istanbul, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Markus SchmidtBiofaction KG, Vienna, Austria.
Günter SeyfriedBiofaction KG, Vienna, Austria.
Kai SoedibjoInstitute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Ian Erik StewartDepartment of Neuroscience, Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine (MDC), Berlin, Germany.
Gregor WolbringDepartment of Community Health Science, Program in Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Sandra YoussefBiofaction KG, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas StieglitzBrainLinks-BrainTools Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

Post-trial obligations in neurotechnologyRF1MH117800 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI GOERING, SARA, KLEIN, ERAN · 2018 to 2020
$2.2M
NIMH NIH HHS RF1 MH117800
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successful and responsible innovation in neurotechnology requires clear ethical priorities and a deep understanding of individual and societal needs as well as public concerns. Recent cases of consumer exploitation, misleading claims, and inadequate patient aftercare reveal critical gaps in current practices and underscore the urgent need for more ethical, transparent, and user-centered engagement in this rapidly developing field. This study focuses on four complementary domains: (1) neuroethics and embodiment; (2) the cultural embedding of neurotechnologies; (3) art and culture in relation to neurotechnology; and (4) human enhancement, technovisions, and sociotechnical imaginaries. Across these domains, the manuscript explores user and societal perceptions, highlighting often overlooked asymmetries in communication between scientists and entrepreneurs and those who ultimately receive research outcomes in the form of products. Drawing on the authors' multidisciplinary expertise and a synthesis of the relevant literature, the manuscript outlines a possible foundation for developing more balanced, inclusive and symmetric communication formats that empower stakeholders regardless of status or expertise. Integrating insights from neurotechnology with applied ethics, the humanities, social sciences, technology assessment and the arts, this work seeks to contribute to a broader understanding of the societal and individual impacts of emerging neurotechnologies and to support the protection and empowerment of users by prioritizing their needs.

Indexed as

artsbrain-computer interfaceembodimentneuroethicsneurotechnologysocietytechnology assessment

Identifiers

PMID42534420
PMCPMC13420731

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.