, 26:377 | Cite as

Beyond the responsibility gap. Discussion note on responsibility and liability in the use of brain-computer interfaces

  • Gerd GrüblerEmail author
Open Forum


The article shows where the argument of responsibility-gap regarding brain-computer interfaces acquires its plausibility from, and suggests why the argument is not plausible. As a way of an explanation, a distinction between the descriptive third-person perspective and the interpretative first-person perspective is introduced. Several examples and metaphors are used to show that ascription of agency and responsibility does not, even in simple cases, require that people be in causal control of every individual detail involved in an event. Taking up the current debate on liability in BCI use, the article provides and discusses some rules that should be followed when potentially harmful BCI-based devices are brought from the laboratory into everyday life.


Brain-computer interface Responsibility gap Shared control Liability Neuroethics 



This work is supported by the European ICT Programme Project FP7-224631. The paper reflects only the author’s views, and funding agencies are not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.


  1. Bayertz K (1995) Eine kurze Geschichte der Herkunft der Verantwortung. In: Bayertz K (ed) Verantwortung. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, pp 3–71Google Scholar
  2. Birbaumer N (2005) Nur das Denken bleibt. Neuroethik des Eingeschlossen-Seins. In: Engels, E./Hildt, E. (Hrsg.): Neurowissenschaften und Menschenbild. Paderborn: mentisGoogle Scholar
  3. Birbaumer N (2006) Brain-computer-interface research: coming of age. Clin Neurophysiol 117:479–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clausen J (2009) Man, machine and in between. Nature 457:1080–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daly JJ, Wolpaw JR (2008) Brain-computer interfaces in neurological rehabilitation. Lancet Neurol 7(11):1032–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davidson D (1971) Agency. In: Binkley R, Bronaugh R, Marras A (eds) Agent, action, and reason. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 3–25Google Scholar
  7. Haselager P et al (2009) A note on ethical aspects of BCI. Neural Netw 22:1352–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kotchoubey B et al (2002) Can humans perceive their brain states? Conscious Cogn 11:98–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lucivero F, Tamburrini G (2008) Ethical monitoring of brain-machine interfaces. AI & Soc 22(3):449–460Google Scholar
  10. Mak JN, Wolpaw JR (2009) Clinical applications of brain-computer interfaces: current state and future prospects. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 2:187–199Google Scholar
  11. Matthias A (2004) The responsibility gap: ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf Technol 6:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCullagh P et al (2010) Can brain computer interfaces become practical assistive devices in the community? Stud Health Technol Inform 160:314–318Google Scholar
  13. Millán JD (2010) et al. Combining brain-computer interfaces and assistive technologies: state-of-the-art and challenges. Front NeurosciGoogle Scholar
  14. Tamburrini G (2009) Brain to computer communication: ethical perspectives on interaction models. Neuroethics 2:137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wolpaw JR (2007) Brain-computer interfaces as new brain output pathways. J Physiol 579(3):613–619Google Scholar
  16. Wolpaw JR et al (2002) Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin Neurophysiol 113(6):767–791Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophisches Seminar, Forschungsstelle Neuroethik/Neurophilosophie, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations