Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Apr 27:9:64.
doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2015.00064. eCollection 2015.

Qualitative assessment of patients' attitudes and expectations toward BCIs and implications for future technology development

Silke Schicktanz  1 , Till Amelung  1 , Jochem W Rieger  2
Affiliations

Qualitative assessment of patients' attitudes and expectations toward BCIs and implications for future technology development

Silke Schicktanz et al. Front Syst Neurosci. .

Abstract

Brain-computer-interfaces (BCIs) are important for the next generation of neuro-prosthesis innovations. Only few pilot projects have tested patients' abilities to control BCIs as well as their satisfaction with the offered technologies. On the one hand, little is known about patients' moral attitudes toward the benefit-risk-ratio of BCIs as well as their needs, priorities, and expectations. On the other hand, ethics experts intensively discuss the general risks of BCIs as well as the limits of neuro-enhancement. To our knowledge, we present here the first qualitative interview study with ten chronic patients matching the potential user categories for motor and communication BCIs to assess their practical and moral attitudes toward this technology. The interviews reveal practical and moral attitudes toward motor BCIs that can impact future technology development. We discuss our empirical findings on patients' perspectives and compare them to neuroscientists' and ethicists' perspectives. Our analysis indicates only partial overlap between the potential users' and the experts' assessments of BCI-technology. It points out the importance of considering the needs and desires of the targeted patient group. Based on our findings, we suggest a multi-fold approach to the development of clinical BCIs, rooted in the participatory technology-development. We conclude that clinical BCI development needs to be explored in a disease-related and culturally sensitive way.

Keywords: acceptance; brain–computer interface (BCI); empowerment; ethics; interviews; medical risk; patient attitude; privacy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Anderson J. (2008). “Neuro-Prosthetic, the extended mind and respect for persons with disability,” in The Contingent Nature of Life. Bioethics and Limits of Human Existence, eds Düwell M., Rehmann-Sutter C., Mieth D. (Dordrecht: Springer; ), 259–275.
    1. Anderson K. D. (2004). Targeting recovery: priorities of the spinal cord injured population. J. Nerotrauma 21 1371–1383 10.1089/neu.2004.21.1371 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anderson K. D. (2009). Consideration of user priorities when developing neural prosthetics. J. Neural. Eng. 6:5 10.1088/1741-2560/6/5/055003 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Attiah M. A., Farah M. J. (2014). Minds, motherboards, and money: futurism and realism in the neuroethics of BCI technologies. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 8:86 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00086 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beck U. (2000). “Risk society revisited. Theory, politics and research programmes,” in The Risk Society and Beyond, eds Adam B., Beck U., Van Loost J. (London: Sage; ), 211–229.

LinkOut - more resources

-