Neuroethics

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 187–198 | Cite as

LIS and BCIs: a Local, Pluralist, and Pragmatist Approach to 4E Cognition

Original Paper

Abstract

Four previous papers in this journal have discussed the role of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) in the lives of Locked-In Syndrome (LIS) patients in terms of the four “E” frameworks for cognition – extended, embedded, embodied, and enactive (also called enacted) cognition. This paper argues that in the light of more recent literature on these 4E frameworks, none of the four papers has taken quite the right approach to deciding which, if any, of the E frameworks is the best one for the job. More specifically, I argue for an approach that is pragmatist rather than purely metaphysical, pluralist rather than monist, and perhaps most importantly, local to particular research programmes, rather than about BCIs in general. The paper will outline this approach, then illustrate it with reference to a particular research programme which tackles the issue of BCI communication for patients in Complete Locked-In Syndrome (CLIS).

Keywords

Locked-in syndrome Brain-computer interfaces Extended cognition Enactivism 4E cognition Pluralism 

References

  1. 1.
    Fenton, A., and S. Alpert. 2008. Extending our view on using BCIs for locked-in syndrome. Neuroethics 1(2): 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walter, S. 2010. Locked-in syndrome, BCI, and a confusion about embodied, embedded, extended, and enacted cognition. Neuroethics 3(1): 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kyselo, M. 2013. Locked-in syndrome and BCI - towards an enactive approach to the self. Neuroethics 6(3): 579–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heersmink, R. 2013. Embodied tools, cognitive tools and brain-computer interfaces. Neuroethics 6(1): 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Menary, R. (Ed.) 2010. Special issue: 4E cognition: embodied, embedded, enacted, extended. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9(4).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kübler, A., and N. Birbaumer. 2008. Brain-computer interfaces and communication in paralysis: extinction of goal directed thinking in completely paralysed patients? Clinical Neurophysiology 119: 2658–2666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith, E., and M. Delargy. 2005. Locked-in syndrome, clinical review. British Medical Journal 330: 406–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allain, P., P.A. Joseph, J.L. Isambert, D. Le Gall, and J. Emile. 1998. Cognitive functions in chronic locked-in syndrome: a report of two cases. Cortex 34: 629–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schnakers, C., S. Majerus, S. Goldman, M. Boly, P. Van Eeckhout, S. Gay, F. Pellas, V. Bartsch, P. Peigneux, G. Moonen, and S. Laureys. 2008. Cognitive function in the locked-in syndrome. Journal of Neurology 255: 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolpaw, J.R. 2007. Brain-computer interfaces as new brain output pathways. The Journal of Physiology 5793: 613–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clark, A., and D. Chalmers. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58(1): 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clark, A. 2008. Supersizing The Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Menary, R. 2010. Cognitive integration and the extended mind. In The extended mind, ed. R. Menary, 227–244. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Galaburda, A.M., and A. Pascual-Leone. 2006. Studying plasticity in the damaged and normal brain. In Patient-based approaches to cognitive neuroscience, eds. M.J. Farah, and T.E. Feinberg, 285–286. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Passer, M.W., R.E. Smith, M.L. Atkinson, J.B. Mitchell, and D.W. Muir. 2005. Psychology: frontiers and applications, 444–480. McGraw-Hill Ryerson: Second Canadian Edition. Toronto.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sherwin, S. 1999. Foundations, frameworks, lenses: the role of theories in bioethics. Bioethics 13: 199–205.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kyselo, M., and E. Di Paolo. 2013. Locked-in syndrome: a challenge for embodied cognitive science. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. doi:10.1007/s11097-013-9344-9.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Varela, F.J., E. Thompson, and E. Rosch. 1991. The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thompson, E. 2007. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rupert, R. 2004. Challenges to the hypothesis of extended cognition. Journal of Philosophy 101(8): 389–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rupert, R. 2010. Extended cognition and the priority of cognitive systems. Cognitive Systems Research 11(4): 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sutton, J. 2010. Exograms and Interdisciplinarity: history, the extended mind, and the civilizing process. In The extended mind, ed. R. Menary, 189–226. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clark, C. 2007. Curing cognitive hiccups: a defence of the extended mind. The Journal of Philosophy 104(4): 163–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adams, F., and K. Aizawa. 2001. The bounds of cognition. Philosophical Psychology 14: 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chang, H. 2012. Is Water H2O?: Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht, London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sternberg, R.J., and E.L. Grigorenko. 2001. Unified psychology. American Psychologist 56(12): 1069–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hibbert, R. 2014. How should we study concepts in the cognitive sciences? The example of memory. Logique & Analyse 228: 683–699.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shapere, D. 1986. External and internal factors in the development of science. Science and Technology Studies 4(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Clark, A. 2003. Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stotz, K., P.E. Griffiths, and R. Knight. 2004. How biologists conceptualize genes: an empirical study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35: 647–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shapere, D. 1987. Method in the philosophy of science and epistemology: how to inquire about inquiry and knowledge. In The Process of Science: Contemporary Philosophical Approaches to Understanding Scientific Practice, ed. N.J. Nersessian, 1–39. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hurley, S. 2010. The varieties of externalism. In The extended mind, ed. R. Menary, 101–154. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ross, D., and J. Ladyman. 2010. The alleged coupling-constitution fallacy and the mature sciences. In The extended mind, ed. R. Menary, 155–166. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Piccione, F., F. Giorgi, P. Tonin, K. Priftis, S. Giove, S. Silvoni, G. Palmas, and F. Beverina. 2006. P300-based brain computer interface: reliability and performance in healthy and paralysed participants. Clinical Neurophysiology 117(3): 531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Birbaumer, N., F. Piccione, S. Silvoni, and M. Wildgruber. 2012. Ideomotor silence: the case of complete paralysis and brain-computer interfaces (BCI). Psychological Research 76: 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Noë, A. 2004. Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shapiro, L. 2011. Embodied cognition. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chemero, A. 2009. Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chemero, A. 2013. Radical embodied cognitive science. Review of General Psychology 17(2): 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wilhelm, B., M. Jordan, and N. Birbaumer. 2006. Communication in locked-in syndrome: effects of imagery on salivary pH. Neurology 67: 534–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gallegos-Ayala, G., A. Furdea, K. Takano, C.A. Ruf, H. Flor, and N. Birbaumer. 2014. Brain communication in a completely locked-in patient using bedside near-infrared spectroscopy. Neurology 82: 1930–1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nijboer, F., N. Birbaumer, and A. Kübler. 2010. The influence of psychological state and motivation on brain-computer interface performance in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis – a longitudinal study. Frontiers in Neuroscience 4(55): 1–13.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    De Massari, D., C.A. Ruf, A. Furdea, T. Matuz, L. Van der Heiden, S. Halder, S. Silvoni, and N. Birbaumer. 2013. Brain communication in the locked-in state. Brain 136: 1989–2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations