Abstract
Research on hybrid bionic systems (HBSs) is still in its infancy but promising results have already been achieved in laboratories. Experiments on humans and animals show that artificial devices can be controlled by neural signals. These results suggest that HBS technologies can be employed to restore sensorimotor functionalities in disabled and elderly people. At the same time, HBS research raises ethical concerns related to possible exogenous and endogenous limitations to human autonomy and freedom. The analysis of these concerns requires reflecting on the availability of scientific models accounting for key aspects of sensorimotor coordination and plastic adaptation mechanisms in the brain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In Europe, research on HBS started in 2003 with the initiative called “Beyond Robotics” launched by the Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) programme, a branch of the Information Society Technologies (IST) programme of the European Union, as part of the 6th Framework Programme. Proposals for the Beyond Robotic initiative addressed the development of “Hybrid bionic systems that would augment human capabilities such as perception of the environment, motion, interaction with other humans, etc. This would involve smooth integration of sophisticated robotic and information systems with human perception–action systems using bi-directional interfaces (invasive or noninvasive) with the human nervous system” (IST priority, WP 2003–2004, ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/ist/docs/wp2003–04_final_en.pdf).
Roboethics can be described as a new interdisciplinary research area dealing with the ethical implications of robotics research and applications. The following are some milestone events in the history of roboethics: the Italy–Japan Workshop “HUMANOIDS: A Techno-Ontological Approach”, held in Tokyo, Japan, in November 2001 (http://www-arts.sssup.it/ItalyinJapan/); the talks on “Techno-Ethics” by Prof. José M. Galvàn at the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, in Pisa, Italy, in 2001 and 2002; the publication of the paper “On Technoethics”, by José Maria Galvan, on the IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, in December 2003; the First International Symposium “ROBOETHICS — The ethics, social, humanitarian and ecological aspects of Robotics”, which took place in Sanremo, Italy, on 30th and 31st November, 2004 (http://www.roboethics.org/sanremo04/index.php); and finally, the establishment of the IEEE-RAS Technical Committee on Roboethics founded by Paolo Dario, Ronald Arkin, and Kazuo Tanie in 2004 (http://www.roboethics.org/ieee_ras_tc/index.php). Currently, roboethics is the main theme of the EU project ETHICBOTS (http://ethicbots.na.infn.it/).
The text of the European Charter of Rights can be found at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/default_en.htm.
Other ethical implications related to HBSs are connected to the justification of invasive experiments on animals and on humans which are performed in many HBS research studies; to the possible privacy violations, arising in light of the fact that HBS technology allows one to access and communicate neural and metabolic data of human beings; to the emergence of social discriminations caused by the high cost of bionic technologies, emphasized by the possibility of commercial or political control of HBS research and application; to the elicitation of false expectations among potential users of HBS technologies, induced by inaccurate dissemination by mass media and scientists and, finally, to the possibility to enhance and augment the capabilities of able bodied people, which can give rise to new forms of power and divides (Salvini et al. 2007).
Problems of external control and responsibility may be even more urgent in connection with military applications of HBS technology. DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency of United States, is currently interested in developing the so-called “cognitive cockpit” by relying on EEG signals recorded from pilots. The aim is to “make aircraft more responsive to the needs and wishes of pilots and aviators by closely monitoring them with sensors and adapting accordingly” (Keiper 2006). Control failures in military HBSs, either caused by unpredicted boundary factors, or even voluntarily induced by other persons, may have disastrous effects. See also Moreno (2006) for information on military applications of bionic technologies.
Recording site (s). Recording can be done on the central or on the peripheral nervous system. CNS interfaces differ from each other with regards the recorded cortical area (e.g. the motor, premotor, or parietal cortex). Single-unit cortical interfaces may record the spiking activity of one or more neurons. Multimodal interfaces record from many (cortical or peripheral or both) places. Invasiveness. Non-invasive interfaces are based on sensors placed externally on the body, usually on the skin. Invasive interfaces are based on sensors placed inside the body, in direct contact with muscles, placed around nerves, or in direct contact with axons (Donoghue et al. 2007). Type of signal. Peripheral interfaces are often based on EMG recordings. EEG recorded by surface electrodes on the scalp are also used in HBS research. More or less invasive brain interface may record electrocorticograms (ECG), low frequency signals representing the combined effect of various electrical activities of neurons (local field potentials), and the spiking of single units. (Navarro et al. 2005; Donoghue et al. 2007).
The ensuing discussion will focus on cortical, both invasive and non-invasive, interfaces. Peripheral control of artificial devices may set fewer demands on our understanding of brain mechanisms of sensory and motor processing, insofar as output devices are controlled by the activity of peripheral nerves or muscles in those cases, rather than by the activity of brain neurons. However, peripheral interfaces are not applicable in a wide range of situations, in which users have lost the connections between the brain and peripheral nerves or muscles.
Motor imagery is not required, in principle, for the cortical control of HBS behaviour (in the aforementioned EEG experiments performed by Millàn et al. 2004, for example, particular actions of the mobile robot were issued by imagining rotating geometric figures).
See also Kandel et al. (2000, Chap. 38), for a survey on the functional organization of the motor cortex.
An experimental study of overfitting in the prediction of muscle activity from multi-site brain recording is reported by Santucci et al. (2005).
It is worth noting, to conclude, that robotic and bionic systems can play significant roles in the discovery and formulation of theoretical models of biological sensorimotor mechanisms. These roles, and the methodological problems connected, are explored in Datteri and Tamburrini (2007) and Tamburrini and Datteri (2005).
References
Abbott A (2006) In search of the sixth sense. Nature 442:125–127
Carmena JM, Lebedev MA, Crist RE, O’Doherty JE, Santucci DM, Dimitrov DF, Patil PG, Henriquez CS, Nicolelis MAL (2003) Learning to control a brain–machine interface for reaching and grasping by primates. PLoS Biol 1(2):193–208
Carmena JM, Lebedev MA, Henriquez CS, Nicolelis MAL (2005) Stable ensemble performance with single-neuron variability during reaching movements in primates. J Neurosci 25(46):10712–10716
Carrozza MC, Cappiello G, Micera S, Edin BB, Beccai L, Cipriani C (2006) Design of a cybernetic hand for perception and action. Biol Cybern 95(6):629–644
Cohen D, Nicolelis MAL (2004) Reduction of single-neuron firing uncertainty by cortical ensembles during motor skill learning. J Neurosci 24(12):3574–3582
Dario P, Carrozza MC, Guglielmelli E, Laschi C, Menciassi A, Micera S, Vecchi F (2005) Robotics as a future and emerging technology. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 12(2):29–45
Datteri E, Tamburrini G (2007) Biorobotic experiments for the discovery of biological mechanisms. Philosophy of Science (in press)
Donoghue JP, Nurmikko A, Black M, Hochberg LR (2007) Assistive technology and robotic control using motor cortex ensemble-based neural interface systems in humans with tetraplegia. J Physiol 579(3):603–611
Farah MJ (2002) Emerging ethical issues in neurosciences. Nature Neurosci 5(11):1123–1129
Farah MJ (2005) Neuroethics: the practical and the philosophical. Trends Cogn Sci 9(1):34–40
Hochberg LR, Serruya MD, Friehs GM, Mukand JA, Saleh M, Caplan AH, Branner A, Chen D, Penn R, Donoghue JP (2006) Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature 442:164–171
Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM (2000) Principles of neural science, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill Medical, New York
Karniel A, Kositsky M, Fleming KM, Chiappalone M, Sanguineti V, Alford ST, Mussa-Ivaldi F (2005) Computational analysis in vitro: dynamics and plasticity of a neuro-robotic system. J Neural Eng 2:S250–S265
Keiper A (2006) The age of neuroelectronics, The New Atlantis (Online), 11, Winter, 2006, available at http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/11/keiper.htm
Lebedev MA, Nicolelis MAL (2006) Brain–machine interfaces: past, present and future. Trends Neurosci 29(9):536–546
Lucivero F (2007) Brain machine interfaces and persons: ontological and ethical issues, Graduation thesis, Department of Philosophy, University of Pisa
Marino D, Tamburrini G (2007) Learning Automata and human responsibility. Int Rev Inform Ethics e-journal (forthcoming)
Marino D, Santoro M, Tamburrini G (2007) Learning robots and human–machine interactions: from epistemology to applied ethics. Art Intell Soc (this issue)
Micera S, Carrozza MC, Beccai L, Vecchi F, Dario P (2006) Hybrid bionic systems for the replacement of hand function. Proc IEEE 94(9):1752–1762
Millán JdR, Renkens F, Mouriño J, Gerstner W (2004) Brain-actuated interaction. Art Intell 159(1–2):241–259
Moreno JD (2006) Mind wars. Brain Research and National Defense, Dana Press, Washington DC
Musallam S, Corneil BD, Greger B, Scherberger H, Andersen RA (2004) Cognitive control signals for neural prosthetics. Science 305(5681):258–262
Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Miller LE (2003) Brain–machine interfaces: computational demands and clinical needs meet basic neuroscience. Trends Neurosci 26(6):329–334
Navarro X, Krueger TB, Lago N, Micera S, Stieglitz T, Dario P (2005) A critical review of interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of neuroprostheses and hybrid bionic systems. J Peripher Nerv Syst 10:229–258
Pfurtscheller G, Leeb R, Keinrath C, Friedman D, Neuper C, Guger C, Slater M (2006) Walking from thought. Brain Res 1071(1):145–152
Porro CA, Francescato MP, Cettolo V, Diamond ME, Baraldi P, Zuiani C, Bazzocchi M, di Prampero PE (1996) Primary motor and sensory cortex activation during motor performance and motor imagery: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurosci 16:7688–7698
Pylatiuk C, Mounier S, Kargov A, Schulz S, Bretthauer G (2004) Progress in the development of a multifunctional hand prosthesis. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE annual conference of the engineering in medicine and biology society, pp 4260–4263
Reger BD, Fleming KM, Sanguineti V, Alford S, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2000) Connecting brains to robots: an artificial body for studying the computational properties of neural tissues. Art Life 6(4):307–24
Salvini P, Laschi C, Dario P (2007) Roboethics in biorobotics: discussion of case studies. In: Proceedings of 2007 IEEE international conference on robotics automation (ICRA’07), workshop on roboethics (invited paper), 14th April, Rome, Italy
Sanchez JC, Carmena JM, Lebedev MA, Nicolelis MAL, Harris JG, Principe JC (2004) Ascertaining the importance of neurons to develop better brain–machine interfaces. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 51(6):943–953
Santhanam G, Ryu SI, Yu BM, Afshar A, Shenoy KV (2006) A high-performance brain–computer interface. Nature 442:195–198
Santucci DM, Kralik JD, Lebedev MA, Nicolelis MA (2005) Frontal and parietal cortical ensembles predict single-trial muscle activity during reaching movements in primates. Eur J Neurosci 22(6):1529–1540
Sasaki Y, Nakayama Y, Yoshida M (2002) Sensory feedback system using interferential current for EMG prosthetic hand. In: Proceedings of the 2nd joint EMBS international conference, Houston, TX
Serruya MD, Donoghue JP (2004) Design principles for intracortical neuromotor prosthetics. In: Horch KW, Dhillon GS (eds) Neuroprosthetics: theory and practice. Imperial College Press, London, pp 1158–1196
Spencer PE, Marschark M (2003) Cochlear implants: issues and implications. In: Marschark M, Spencer PE (eds) Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 434–450
Talwar SK, Xu S, Hawley ES, Weiss SA, Moxon KA, Chapin JK (2002) Rat navigation guided by remote control. Nature 417(6884):37–38
Tamburrini G, Datteri E (2005) Machine experiments and theoretical modelling: from cybernetic methodology to neuro-robotics. Minds Mach 15(3–4):335–358
Taylor DM, Helms Tillery SI, Schwartz AB (2002) Direct cortical control of 3d neuroprosthetic devices. Science 296:1829–1832
Tyler DJ, Durand DM (2002) Functionally selective peripheral nerve stimulation with a flat interface nerve electrode. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 10:294–303
Warwick K (2003) Cyborg morals, cyborg values, cyborg ethics. Ethics Inform Technol 5:131–137
Wessberg J, Stambaugh CR, Kralik JD, Beck PD, Laubach M, Chapin J, Kim J, James Biggs S, Srinivasan MA, Nicolelis MAL (2000) Realtime prediction of hand trajectory by ensembles of cortical neurons in primates. Nature 408:361–365
Wiener N (1964) God & Golem, Inc.—a comment on certain points where cybernetics impinges on religion, MIT Press, Cambridge
Wolpaw JR (2007) Brain–computer interfaces as new brain output pathways. J Physiol 579(3):613–619
Wolpaw JR, Birbaumer N, Mc Farland DJ, Pfurtscheller G, Vaughan TM (2002) Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin Neurophysiol 113:767–791
Zecca M, Micera S, Carrozza MC, Dario P (2002) On the control of multifunctional prosthetic hands by processing the electromyographic signal. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 30(4–6):459–485
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Guglielmo Tamburrini for his valuable comments on many aspects of this article. Financial support in the framework of the ETHICBOTS (EU FP6 Science and Society 017759) and NEUROBOTICS (IST-001917) is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Salvini, P., Datteri, E., Laschi, C. et al. Scientific models and ethical issues in hybrid bionic systems research. AI & Soc 22, 431–448 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-007-0158-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-007-0158-6