Psychosocial and Ethical Aspects in Non-Invasive EEG-Based BCI Research—A Survey Among BCI Users and BCI Professionals
- 1.1k Downloads
In this paper, the results of a pilot interview study with 19 subjects participating in an EEG-based non-invasive brain–computer interface (BCI) research study on stroke rehabilitation and assistive technology and of a survey among 17 BCI professionals are presented and discussed in the light of ethical, legal, and social issues in research with human subjects. Most of the users were content with study participation and felt well informed. Negative aspects reported include the long and cumbersome preparation procedure, discomfort with the cap and the wet electrodes, problems concerning BCI control, and strains during the training sessions. In addition, some users reflected on issues concerning system security. When asked for morally problematic issues in this field of non-invasive BCI research, the BCI professionals stressed the need for correct information transfer, the obligation to avoid unrealistic expectations in study participants, the selection of study participants, benefits and strains of participation, BCI illiteracy, the possibility of detrimental brain modifications induced by BCI use, and problems that may arise at the end of the trials. Furthermore, privacy issues were raised. Based on the results obtained, psychosocial and ethical aspects of EEG-based non-invasive BCI research are discussed and possible implications for future research addressed.
KeywordsBrain–computer interface (BCI) Ethics Research Human subjects Informed consent Risks and benefits User-centered approach
This work is supported by the European ICT Programme Project FP7-224631. The paper reflects only the authors’ views and funding agencies are not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.
- 1.Birbaumer, Niels. 2005. Nur das Denken bleibt. Neuroethik des Eingeschlossen-Seins. In Neurowissenschaften und Menschenbild, ed. Engels/Hildt, 77–94. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
- 7.Hildt, Elisabeth. 2010. Brain-computer interaction and medical access to the brain: individual, social and ethical implications. Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology. doi: 10.2202/1941-6008.1143.
- 9.Nijboer, Femke, et al. 2011. The Asilomar survey: stakeholders’ opinions on ethical issues related to brain-computer interfacing. Neuroethics. doi: 10.1007/s12152-011-9132-6.
- 11.Zickler, Claudia. 2009. Brain computer interaction applications for people with disabilities: defining user needs and user requirements. In Assistive technology from adapted equipment to inclusive environments, ed. P.L. Emiliani et al., 185–189. Amsterdam: Ios Press.Google Scholar
- 13.Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- 14.Strauss, Anselm L, and Corbin, Juliet M. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. University of California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 15.Maguire, M.C. et al. 1998. User-centred requirements handbook. RESPECT Consortium. http://hdl.handle.net/2134/2651.
- 16.World Medical Association. 2008. Declaration of Helsinki. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html.