Abstract
Implantable brain–computer interface (BCI) technology is an expanding area of engineering research now moving into clinical application. Ensuring meaningful informed consent in implantable BCI research is an ethical imperative. The emerging and rapidly evolving nature of implantable BCI research makes identification of risks, a critical component of informed consent, a challenge. In this paper, 6 core risk domains relevant to implantable BCI research are identified—short and long term safety, cognitive and communicative impairment, inappropriate expectations, involuntariness, affective impairment, and privacy and security. Work in deep brain stimulation provides a useful starting point for understanding this core set of risks in implantable BCI. Three further risk domains—risks pertaining to identity, agency, and stigma—are identified. These risks are not typically part of formalized consent processes. It is important as informed consent practices are further developed for implantable BCI research that attention be paid not just to disclosing core research risks but exploring the meaning of BCI research with potential participants.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The list of core and exploratory risk domains are not exhaustive nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive, but are meant as a useful, first pass framework for mapping risk in BCI research. While this framework may be applicable to other areas of BCI research, such as non-implantable BCI (e.g., EEG, TMS, tCDS), extension beyond implantable BCI is not intended here.
References
Aarsland, D., Zaccai, J., & Brayne, C. (2005). A systematic review of prevalence studies of dementia in Parkinson’s disease. Movement Disorders, 20, 1255–1263.
Abbott, A. (2012). Mind-controlled robot arms show promise. http://www.nature.com/news/mind-controlled-robot-arms-show-promise-1.10652. Accessed 29 June 2015
Abelson, J. L., Curtis, G. C., Sagher, O., Albucher, R. C., Harrigan, M., Taylor, S. F., et al. (2005). Deep brain stimulation for refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 57(5), 510–516.
Appelbaum, P., & Grisso, T. (2001). MacCAT-CR: MacArthur competence assessment tool for clinical research. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Appelbaum, P. S., Roth, L. H., Lidz, C. W., Benson, P., & Winslade, W. (1987). False hopes and best data: Consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Center Report, 17(2), 20–24.
Baylis, F. (2013). “I Am Who I Am”: On the perceived threats to personal identity from deep brain stimulation. Neuroethics, 6(3), 513–526.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2012). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, E., Mathieu, G., & Racine, E. (2009). Preparing the ethical future of deep brain stimulation. Surgical Neurology, 72(6), 577–586.
Bell, E., Maxwell, B., McAndrews, M. P., Sadikot, A., & Racine, E. (2010). Hope and patients’ expectations in deep brain stimulation: Healthcare providers’ perspectives and approaches. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 21, 112–124.
Bell, E., Racine, E., Chiasson, P., Dufourcq-Brana, M., Dunn, L. B., Fins, J. J., et al. (2014). Beyond consent in research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 23(03), 361–368.
Bergey, G. K., Morrell, M. J., Mizrahi, E. M., Goldman, A., King-Stephens, D., Nair, D., et al. (2015). Long-term treatment with responsive brain stimulation in adults with refractory partial seizures. Neurology, 84(8), 810–817.
Carmichael, C., & Carmichael, P. (2014). BNCI systems as a potential assistive technology: Ethical issues and participatory research in the BrainAble project. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9(1), 41–47.
Cherney, J. L. (1999). Deaf culture and the cochlear implant debate: Cyborg politics and the identity of people with disabilities. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36(1), 22–34.
Chio, A., Gauthier, A., Calvo, A., Ghiglione, P., & Mutani, R. (2005). Caregiver burden and patients’ perception of being a burden in ALS. Neurology, 64(10), 1780–1782.
Clausen, J. (2008). Moving minds: ethical aspects of neural motor prostheses. Biotechnology Journal, 3(12), 1493–1501.
Clausen, J. (2011). Conceptual and ethical issues with brain–hardware interfaces. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24(6), 495–501.
Consonni, M., Iannaccone, S., Cerami, C., et al. (2013). The cognitive and behavioural profile of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Application of the consensus criteria. Behavioural Neurology, 27(2), 143–153.
Costello, A., Al Khamees, H., Moriarty, J., Hulse, N., Malik, I., Selway, R., et al. (2011). Non-amnestic mild cognitive impairment is a prominent aspect in Parkinson’s disease patients being considered for deep brain stimulation. Basal Ganglia, 1(4), 213–220.
Denning, T., Matsuoka, Y., & Kohno, T. (2009). Neurosecurity: Security and privacy for neural devices. Neurosurgical Focus, 27(1), E7.
Drazin, D., Spitler, K., Cekic, M., et al. (2013). Incidental finding of tumor while investigating subarachnoid hemorrhage: Ethical considerations and practical strategies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 1107–1120.
Farah, M. J. (2012). Neuroethics: The ethical, legal, and societal impact of neuroscience. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 571–591.
Finder, S. G. (2012). Potential subjects’ responses to an ethics questionnaire in a phase I study of deep brain stimulation in early Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 23(3), 207–216.
Fisher, C. E., Dunn, L. B., Christopher, P. P., Holtzheimer, P. E., Leykin, Y., Mayberg, H. S., et al. (2012). The ethics of research on deep brain stimulation for depression: Decisional capacity and therapeutic misconception. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1265, 69–79.
Foley, P. (2015). Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease: Historical and neuroethical aspects. In J. Clausen & N. Levy (Eds.), Handbook of neuroethics (pp. 561–587). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gilbert, F. (2012). The burden of normality: From ‘chronically ill’ to ‘symptom free’. New ethical challenges for deep brain stimulation postoperative treatment. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(7), 408–412.
Glannon, W. (2009). Stimulating brains, altering minds. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(5), 289–292.
Glannon, W. (2010). Consent to deep brain stimulation for neurological and psychiatric disorders. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 21, 104–111.
Glannon, W. (2014). Ethical issues with brain–computer interfaces. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 136. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2014.00136.
Goering, S. (2014). Is it still me? DBS, agency, and the extended, relational me. AJOB Neuroscience, 5(4), 50–51.
Goethals, I., Jacobs, F., Van der Linden, C., Caemaert, J., & Audenaert, K. (2008). Brain activation associated with deep brain stimulation causing dissociation in a patient with Tourette’s syndrome. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 9(4), 543–549.
Halperin, D., Heydt-Benjamin, T. S., Ransford, B., Clark, S. S., Defend, B., Morgan, W., et al. (2008). Pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators: Software radio attacks and zero-power defenses. In IEEE (Ed.), IEEE symposium on security and privacy (pp. 129–142). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Conference Publishing Services.
Haselager, P. (2013). Did I do that? Brain–computer interfacing and the sense of agency. Minds and Machines, 23(3), 405–418.
Haselager, P., Vlek, R., Hill, J., & Nijboer, F. (2009). A note on ethical aspects of BCI. Neural Networks, 22(9), 1352–1357.
Herron, J., & Chizeck, H. J. (2014). Prototype closed-loop deep brain stimulation systems inspired by Norbert Wiener. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Conference on Norbert Wiener in the 21st Century (pp. 1–6).
Hochberg, L. R., & Anderson, K. D. (2012). BCI users and their needs. In J. Wolpaw & W. W. Elizabeth (Eds.), Brain–computer interfaces: Principles and practice (pp. 317–323). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hochberg, L. R., Bacher, D., Jarosiewicz, B., Masse, N. Y., Simeral, J. D., Vogel, J., et al. (2012). Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature, 485(7398), 372–375.
Hochberg, L., & Cochrane, T. (2013). Implanted neural interfaces: Ethics in treatment and research. In A. Chatterjee & M. Farah (Eds.), Neuroethics in practice (pp. 235–250). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195389784.003.0017.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogBX18maUiM. Accessed 17 July 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WO71e0XLqs. Accessed 17 July 2015
Johnson-Green, D. (2010). Informed consent issues in traumatic brain injury research: Current status of capacity assessment and recommendations for safeguards. J Head Trauma Rehabil, 25(2), 145–150. doi:10.1097/HTR.0b013e3181d8287d.
Klein, E. (2015). Models of the patient–machine–clinician relationship in closed-loop machine neuromodulation. In S. van Rysewyk & M. Pontier (Eds.), Machine medical ethics (pp. 273–290). Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.
Kolata, G. (2009). Of fact, fiction, and Cheney’s defibrillator. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/science/of-fact-fiction-and-defibrillators.html?_r=0. Accessed 22 July 2015
Kübler, A., & Birbaumer, N. (2008). Brain–computer interfaces and communication in paralysis: Extinction of goal directed thinking in completely paralysed patients? Clinical Neurophysiology, 119(11), 2658–2666.
Kubler, A., & Muller, K.-R. (2007). An introduction to brain–computer interfacing. In G. Dornhege, J. Millan, T. Hinterberger, D. McFarland, & K.-R. Muller (Eds.), Towards brain–computer interfacing (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lang, A. E., Houeto, J., Krack, P., Kubu, C., Lyons, K. E., Moro, E., et al. (2006). Deep brain stimulation: Preoperative issues. Movement Disorders, 21(S14), S171–S196.
Larson, P. S. (2014). Deep brain stimulation for movement disorders. Neurotherapeutics, 11(3), 465–474.
Leentjens, A. F. G., Visser-Vandewalle, V., Temel, Y., & Verhey, F. R. J. (2004). Manipuleerbare wilsbekwaamheid: een ethisch probleem bij elektrostimulatie van de nucleaus subthalamicus voor ernstige ziekte van Parkinson. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 148, 1394–1397.
Lhommeé, E., Klinger, H., Thobois, S., Schmitt, E., Ardouin, C., Bichon, A., et al. (2012). Subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: Restoring the balance of motivated behaviours. Brain, 135, 1463–1477.
Liberati, G., da Rocha, J. L., Van Dalboni, L., der Heiden, A., Raffone, N. B., Olivetti, B. M., et al. (2011). Toward a brain–computer interface for Alzheimer’s disease patients by combining classical conditioning and brain state classification. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 31, S211–S220.
Mak, J. N., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2009). Clinical applications of brain–computer interfaces: Current state and future prospects. Biomedical Engineering IEEE Reviews, 2, 187–199.
Mandat, T. S., Hurwitz, T., & Honey, C. R. (2006). Hypomania as an adverse effect of subthalamic nucleus stimulation: Report of two cases. Acta Neurochirurgica, 148(8), 895–898.
McCullagh, P., Lightbody, G., Zygierewicz, J., & Kernohan, W. G. (2014). Ethical challenges associated with the development and deployment of brain computer interface technology. Neuroethics, 7(2), 109–122.
McGie, S. C., Nagai, M. K., & Artinian-Shaheen, T. (2013). Clinical ethical concerns in the implantation of brain-machine interfaces: Part II: Specific clinical and technical issues affecting ethical soundness. Pulse IEEE, 4(2), 32–37. [confirm the issue].
Morishita, T., Okun, M. S., Jones, J. D., Foote, K. D., & Bowers, D. (2014). Cognitive declines after deep brain stimulation are likely to be attributable to more than caudate penetration and lead location. Brain, 137(5), e274.
Patuzzo, S., & Manganotti, P. (2014). Deep brain stimulation in persistent vegetative states: Ethical issues governing decision making. Behavioural Neurology, 2014, 641213. Epub 2014 Mar 16.
Post, M. W. M., Bloemen, J., & De Witte, L. P. (2005). Burden of support for partners of persons with spinal cord injuries. Spinal Cord, 43(5), 311–319.
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (2015). Gray matters: Topics at the intersection of neuroroscience, ethics, and society, Vol. 2. Washington, DC.
Rao, R. P. N. (2013). Brain–computer interfacing: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richmond, F. J. R., & Loeb, G. E. (2012). Dissemination: Getting BCIs to the people who need them. In J. Wolpaw & E. W. Wolpaw (Eds.), Brain–computer interfaces: Principles and practice (pp. 337–350). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ringholz, G. M., Appel, S. H., Bradshaw, M., et al. (2005). Prevalence and patterns of cognitive impairment in sporadic ALS. Neurology, 65, 586–589.
Schermer, M. (2011). Ethical issues in deep brain stimulation. Frontiers Integrative Neruoscience, 5, 17.
Schneider, M.-J., Fins, J. J., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2012). Ethical issues in BCI research. In J. Wolpaw & E. Wolpaw (Eds.), Brain–computer interfaces: Principles and practice (pp. 373–383).
Schrag, A., Hovris, A., Morley, D., Quinn, N., & Jahanshahi, M. (2006). Caregiver-burden in Parkinson’s disease is closely associated with psychiatric symptoms, falls, and disability. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 12(1), 35–41.
Schüpbach, M., Gargiulo, M., Welter, M. L., Mallet, L., Behar, C., Houeto, J. L., et al. (2006). Neurosurgery in Parkinson disease A distressed mind in a repaired body? Neurology, 66(12), 1811–1816.
Seidenberg, M., Pulsipher, D. T., & Hermann, B. (2007). Cognitive progression in epilepsy. Neuropsychology Review, 17(4), 445–454.
Sellars, A. (2010). Brain–computer interface for long-term independent home use. Amyo Lat Scl, 11, 449–455.
Siderowf, A., Jaggi, J. L., Xie, S. X., et al. (2006). Long-term effects of bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation on health-related quality of life in advanced Parkinson’s disease. Movement Disorders, 21(6), 746–753.
Skuban, T., Hardenacke, K., Woopen, C., & Kuhn, J. (2011). Informed consent in deep brain stimulation–ethical considerations in a stress field of pride and prejudice. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 5, 7. doi:10.3389/fnint.2011.00007.
Synofzik, M. (2015). Deep brain stimulation research ethics: The ethical need for standardized reporting, adequate trial designs, and study registrations. In J. Clausen & N. Levy (Eds.), Handbook of neuroethics (pp. 621–633). Dordrecht: Springer.
Synofzik, M., & Schlaepfer, T. E. (2008). Stimulating personality: Ethical criteria for deep brain stimulation in psychiatric patients and for enhancement purposes. Biotechnology Journal, 3(12), 1511–1520.
Synofzik, M., Schlaepfer, T. E., & Fins, J. J. (2012). How happy is too happy? Euphoria, neuroethics, and deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens. AJOB Neuroscience, 3(1), 30–36.
U.S. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vlek, R. J., Steines, D., Szibbo, D., Kübler, A., Schneider, M.-J., Haselager, P., et al.(2012). Ethical issues in brain–computer interface research, development, and dissemination. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, 36(2), 94–99.
Wardrope, A. (2014). Authenticity and autonomy in deep-brain stimulation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(8), 563–566.
Widge, A. S., Arulpragasam, A. R., Deckersbach, T., & Dougherty, D. D. (2015). Deep brain stimulation for psychiatric disorders. Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource (pp. 1–17).
Witt, K., Kuhn, J., Timmermann, L., Zurowski, M., & Woopen, C. (2013). Deep brain stimulation and the search for identity. Neuroethics, 6(3), 499–511.
Wolaw, J., & Wolpaw, E. W. (2012). Brain–computer interfaces: Principles and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to Sara Goering and Laura Specker Sullivan for helpful comments. This work was supported by Award Number EEC-1028725 from the National Science Foundation. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klein, E. Informed Consent in Implantable BCI Research: Identifying Risks and Exploring Meaning. Sci Eng Ethics 22, 1299–1317 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9712-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9712-7