CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 129Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeuroscience and Neural Engineering

Embodiment and estrangement: results from a first-in-human “intelligent BCI” trial

Open access
Gilbert, F., Cook, M., O’Brien, T., Illes, J.·2019·Science and Engineering Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-0001-5PMC PMC6418065
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

While new generations of implantable brain computer interface (BCI) devices are being developed, evidence in the literature about their impact on the patient experience is lagging. In this article, we address this knowledge gap by analysing data from the first-in-human clinical trial to study patients with implanted BCI advisory devices. We explored perceptions of self-change across six patients who volunteered to be implanted with artificially intelligent BCI devices. We used qualitative methodological tools grounded in phenomenology to conduct in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Results show that, on the one hand, BCIs can positively increase a sense of the self and control; on the other hand, they can induce radical distress, feelings of loss of control, and a rupture of patient identity. We conclude by offering suggestions for the proactive creation of preparedness protocols specific to intelligent-predictive and advisory-BCI technologies essential to prevent potential iatrogenic harms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11948-017-0001-5

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the BCI context, blurred boundaries between 'self' and 'machine' can destabilize identity formation, producing self-doubt and estrangement.

    “In the BCI context, blurred boundaries between “self” and “machine” can destabilize identity formation, producing self-doubt and estrangement (Gilbert et al., 2019).”

    From Toward a humanized technology: a reinterpretation of Erich Fromm’ s humanistic peace psychology (2026) · cites this paper as Gilbert et al., 2019

    The Introduction says BCIs may blur the boundary between a patient’s identity and an implanted device. The Discussion reports changes in self-understanding and postoperative estrangement, including one patient’s distress and loss of control. It does not specifically identify self-doubt or establish that blurred boundaries caused the distress; another patient experienced the change as restorative. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Abbott MN Peck SL Emerging ethical issues related to the use of brain–computer interfaces for patients with total locked-in syndrome Neuroethics 2017 10 235 10.1007/s12152-016-9296-1 · DOI
  2. Brown T Thompson MC Herron J Ko A Chizeck H Goering S Controlling our brains—A case study on the implications of brain computer interface-triggered deep brain stimulation for essential tremor Brain Computer Interfaces 2016 3 4 165 170 10.1080/2326263X.2016.1207494 · DOI
  3. Buller T Neurotechnology, invasiveness and the extended mind Neuroethics 2013 6 3 593 605 10.1007/s12152-011-9133-5 · DOI
  4. Clausen J Conceptual and ethical issues with brain–hardware interfaces Current Opinion in Psychiatry 2011 24 6 495 501 10.1097/YCO.0b013e32834bb8ca 21934620 · DOI
  5. Clausen J Bonding brains to machines: Ethical implications of electroceuticals for the human brain Neuroethics 2013 6 3 429 434 10.1007/s12152-013-9186-8 · DOI
  6. Clausen J Fetz E Donoghue J Ushiba J Spörhase U Chandler J Birbaumer N Soekadar SR Help, hope, and hype: ethical dimensions of neuroprosthetics Science 2017 356 6345 1338 1339 10.1126/science.aam7731 28663460 · DOI
  7. Cook M O’Brien TJ Berkovic SF Murphy M Morokoff A Fabinyi G D’Souza W Yerra R Archer J Litewka L Hosking S Lightfoot P Ruedebusch V Sheffield WD Snyder D Leyde K Himes D Prediction of seizure likelihood with a long-term, implanted seizure advisory system in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy: A first-in-man study Lancet Neurology 2013 12 6 563 571 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70075-9 23642342 · DOI
  8. Gallagher S Phenomenology and experimental design: Toward a phenomenologically enlightened experimental science Journal of Consciousness Studies 2003 10 9–10 85 99
  9. Gardner AB Krieger AM Vachtsevanos G Litt B One-class novelty detection for seizure analysis from intracranial EEG JMLR 2006 2 7 1025 1044
  10. Gilbert F The burden of normality: From ‘chronically ill’ to ‘symptom free’. New ethical challenges for deep brain stimulation postoperative treatment Journal of Medical Ethics 2012 38 408 412 10.1136/medethics-2011-100044 22431560 · DOI
  11. Gilbert F Deep brain stimulation for treatment resistant depression: Postoperative feeling of self-estrangement, suicide attempt and impulsive–aggressive behaviours Neuroethics 2013 6 3 473 481 10.1007/s12152-013-9178-8 · DOI
  12. Gilbert F Deep brain stimulation and postoperative suicidality among treatment resistant depression patients: Should eligibility protocols exclude patients with a history of suicide attempts and anger/impulsivity? AJOB Neuroscience 2013 4 1 28 35 10.1080/21507740.2012.740143 · DOI
  13. Gilbert F Harris AR Kapsa RMI Controlling brain cells with light: Ethical considerations for optogenetic clinical trials AJOB Neuroscience 2014 5 3 3 11 10.1080/21507740.2014.911213 · DOI
  14. Gilbert F A threat to autonomy? The intrusion of predictive brain devices American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2015 6 4 4 11 26740906 PMC4685604
  15. Gilbert F Self-estrangement and deep brain stimulation: Ethical issues related to forced explantation Neuroethics 2015 8 2 107 114 10.1007/s12152-014-9224-1 · DOI
  16. Gilbert F Goddard E Viaña JMN Carter A Horne M “I miss being me”: Phenomenological effects of deep brain stimulation American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2017 8 2 96 109
  17. Gilbert, F., O’Brien, T., & Cook, M. (In Press). The effects of closed-loop brain implants on autonomy and deliberation what are the risks of being kept in the loop? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 10.1017/S0963180117000640. 29509128 · DOI
  18. Glannon W Ethical issues in neuroprosthetics Journal of Neural Engineering 2016 13 2 021002 10.1088/1741-2560/13/2/021002 26859756 · DOI
  19. Glannon W Ineichen C El Hady A Philosophical aspects of closed-loop neuroscience Closed loop neuroscience 2016 London Elsevier 259 270
  20. Goering S Klein E Dougherty D Widge A Staying in the loop: Relational agency and identity in next-generation DBS for psychiatry AJOB Neuroscience 2017 8 2 59 70 10.1080/21507740.2017.1320320 · DOI
  21. Heersmink R Embodied tools, cognitive tools and brain–computer interfaces Neuroethics 2013 6 1 207 219 10.1007/s12152-011-9136-2 · DOI
  22. Hildt E What will this do to me and my brain? Ethical issues in brain-to-brain interfacing Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 2015 9 17 10.3389/fnsys.2015.00017 25762903 PMC4340163 · DOI
  23. Hongladarom S Brain–brain integration in 2035: Metaphysical and ethical implications Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society. 2015 13 3/4 205 217 10.1108/JICES-10-2014-0042 · DOI
  24. Jebari K Brain machine interface and human enhancement—An ethical review Neuroethics 2013 6 3 617 625 10.1007/s12152-012-9176-2 · DOI
  25. Jebari K Hansson S-O European public deliberation on brain machine interface technology: Five convergence seminars Science and Engineering Ethics 2013 19 3 1071 1086 10.1007/s11948-012-9425-0 23263902 · DOI
  26. Kellmeyer P Cochrane T Müller O Mitchell C Ball T Fins JJ Biller-Andorno N The effect of closed-loop medical devices on the autonomy and accountability of persons and systems Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2016 25 4 623 633 10.1017/S0963180116000359 27634714 · DOI
  27. Klein E Informed consent in implantable BCI research: Identifying risks and exploring meaning Science and Engineering Ethics 2015 22 5 1299 1317 10.1007/s11948-015-9712-7 26497727 · DOI
  28. Klein E Brown T Sample M Truitt AR Goering S Engineering the brain: Ethical issues and the introduction of neural devices Hastings Center Report 2015 45 6 26 35 10.1002/hast.515 26556144 · DOI
  29. Klein E Jeffrey O Informed consent in implantable BCI research: Identification of research risks and recommendations for development of best practices Journal of Neural Engineering 2016 13 4 43001 43011 10.1088/1741-2560/13/4/043001 27247140 · DOI
  30. Kotchetkov IS Hwang BY Appelboom G Kellner CP Connolly ES Jr Brain–computer interfaces: Military, neurosurgical, and ethical perspective Journal of Neurosurgery 2010 28 5 E25 20568942
  31. Kyselo M Locked-in syndrome and BCI—Towards an enactive approach to the self Neuroethics 2013 6 579 10.1007/s12152-011-9104-x · DOI
  32. Lee J Cochlear implantation, enhancements, transhumanism and posthumanism: Some human questions Science and Engineering Ethics 2016 22 67 92 10.1007/s11948-015-9640-6 25962718 · DOI
  33. McCullagh P Lightbody G Zygierewicz J Kernohan WG Ethical challenges associated with the development and deployment of brain computer interface technology Neuroethics 2014 7 2 109 122 10.1007/s12152-013-9188-6 · DOI
  34. Moritz CT Ruther P Goering S Stett A Ball T Burgard W Chudler EH Rao RPN New perspectives on neuroengineering and neurotechnologies: NSF-DFG workshop report IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 2016 63 7 1354 10.1109/TBME.2016.2543662 27008657 · DOI
  35. Nijboer F Clausen J Brendan Z Allison Z Haselager P The Asilomar survey: Stakeholders’ opinions on ethical issues related to brain–computer interfacing Neuroethics 2013 6 3 541 578 10.1007/s12152-011-9132-6 24273623 PMC3825606 · DOI
  36. Racine E Quintal A Matthew Sample M Neuroessentialism in discussions about the impact of closed-loop technologies on agency and identity AJOB Neuroscience 2017 8 2 81 83 10.1080/21507740.2017.1320328 30147986 PMC6103634 · DOI
  37. Tamburrini G Brain to computer communication: Ethical perspectives on interaction models Neuroethics 2009 2 137 149 10.1007/s12152-009-9040-1 · DOI
  38. Thomson C Segrave R “I Miss You Too”: More voices needed to examine the phenomenological effects of deep brain stimulation AJOB Neuroscience 2017 8 2 122 123 10.1080/21507740.2017.1320321 · DOI
  39. Trimper JB Wolpe PR Rommelfanger KS When “I” becomes “We”: Ethical implications of emerging brain-to-brain interfacing technologies Frontiers in Neuroengineering 2014 7 4 10.3389/fneng.2014.00004 24575002 PMC3921579 · DOI
  40. Vlek RJ Steines D Szibbo D Kübler A Schneider MJ Haselager P Nijboer F Ethical issues in brain–computer interface research, development, and dissemination Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy 2012 36 2 94 99 10.1097/NPT.0b013e31825064cc 22592066 · DOI
  41. Wilson SJ Bladin P Saling M The “burden of normality”: Concepts of adjustment after surgery for seizures Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 2001 70 5 649 656 10.1136/jnnp.70.5.649 PMC1737335 11309460 · DOI
  42. Wilson SJ Bladin P Saling M The burden of normality: A framework for rehabilitation after epilepsy surgery Epilepsia 2007 48 9 13 16 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2007.01393.x 18047593 · DOI
  43. Wilson SJ Bladin PF Saling MM McIntosh AM Lawrence JA The longitudinal course of adjustment after seizure surgery Seizure 2001 10 3 165 172 10.1053/seiz.2000.0491 11437614 · DOI
  44. Wilson SJ Wrench JM McIntosh AM Bladin PF Berkovic SF Profiles of psychosocial outcome after epilepsy surgery: The role of personality Epilepsia 2010 51 1133e8 19889018

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilbert, F., Cook, M., O’Brien, T., & Illes, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Gilbert, F.
  • Cook, M.
  • Illes, J.
ORCID
Venue
Science and Engineering Ethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-11-11
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
83-96
ISSN
  • 1353-3452 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-5546
DOI
10.1007/s11948-017-0001-5
PMC
PMC6418065
OpenAlex
W2767664771
Cited by
129
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7
FWCI
5.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Science and Engineering Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UTAS Research Repository (acceptedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Fondation (EEC-1028725)
  • Australian Research Council (DE150101390, CE 140100012)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
Keywords
brain-computer interface, embodiment, estrangement, self-perception, loss of control, patient identity, iatrogenic injury, patient readiness, phenomenology of technology
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Brain, Humans, Intelligence, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Stress, Psychological, Technology, Knowledge, Prostheses and Implants, Qualitative Research, Brain-Computer Interfaces

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review