Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 101

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Towards a Governance Framework for Brain Data

Ienca, Marcello, Fins, Joseph J., Jox, Ralf J., Jotterand, Fabrice, Voeneky, Silja, Andorno, Roberto, Ball, Tonio, Castelluccia, Claude, Chavarriaga, Ricardo, Chneiweiss, Hervé, Ferretti, Agata, Friedrich, Orsolya, Hurst, Samia, Merkel, Grischa, Molnár-Gábor, Fruzsina, Rickli, Jean-Marc, Scheibner, James, Vayena, Effy, Yuste, Rafael, Kellmeyer, Philipp·2022·Neuroethics
DOI 10.1007/s12152-022-09498-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The increasing availability of brain data within and outside the biomedical field, combined with the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to brain data analysis, poses a challenge for ethics and governance. We identify distinctive ethical implications of brain data acquisition and processing, and outline a multi-level governance framework. This framework is aimed at maximizing the benefits of facilitated brain data collection and further processing for science and medicine whilst minimizing risks and preventing harmful use. The framework consists of four primary areas of regulatory intervention: binding regulation, ethics and soft law, responsible innovation, and human rights.

Overview

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/s12152-022-09498-8

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Ienca, M., P. Haselager, and E.J. Emanuel. 2018. Brain leaks and consumer neurotechnology. Nature Biotechnology 36 (9): 805–810. · DOI
  2. Wang Y, S. Hong, C. Tai. 2019. China’s Efforts to Lead the Way in AI Start in Its Classrooms. The Wall Street Journal [published Online First: Oct. 24, 2019].
  3. Ienca, M., F. Jotterand, and B.S. Elger. 2018. From healthcare to warfare and reverse: How should we regulate dual-use neurotechnology? Neuron 97 (2): 269–274. · DOI
  4. Frégnac, Y. 2017. Big data and the industrialization of neuroscience: A safe roadmap for understanding the brain? Science 358 (6362): 470–477. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan8866. · DOI
  5. Landhuis, E. 2017. Neuroscience: Big brain, big data. Nature 541 (7638): 559–561. https://doi.org/10.1038/541559a. · DOI
  6. Yuste, R., and C. Bargmann. 2017. Toward a global BRAIN initiative. Cell 168 (6): 956–959. · DOI
  7. Grillner, S., N. Ip, C. Koch, et al. 2016. Worldwide initiatives to advance brain research. Nature neuroscience 19 (9): 1118–1122. · DOI
  8. Castelluccia, C. 2020. From Dataveillance to Datapulation : The Dark Side of Targeted Persuasive Technologies. Preprint. Available at: https://hal.inria.fr/hal-02904926/
  9. Zhou, L., S. Pan, J. Wang, et al. 2017. Machine learning on big data: Opportunities and challenges. Neurocomputing 237: 350–361. · DOI
  10. Kellmeyer, P. 2018. Big Brain Data: On the Responsible Use of Brain Data from Clinical and Consumer-Directed Neurotechnological Devices. Neuroethics 1–16. · DOI
  11. Wolkenstein, A., R.J. Jox, and O. Friedrich. 2018. Brain–computer interfaces: Lessons to be learned from the ethics of algorithms. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 27 (4): 635–646. · DOI
  12. Kellmeyer, P. 2020. Ethical issues in the application of machine learning to brain disorders. In Machine learning, eds. Mechelli A, Vieira S., 329–42. Academic Press. · DOI
  13. Poldrack, R.A. 2011. Inferring mental states from neuroimaging data: From reverse inference to large-scale decoding. Neuron 72 (5): 692–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.11.001 [published Online First: 2011/12/14]. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Carrillo-Reid, L., S. Han, W. Yang, et al. 2019. Controlling Visually Guided Behavior by Holographic Recalling of Cortical Ensembles. Cell 178 (2): 447–57 e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.045. · DOI
  15. Kay, K.N., T. Naselaris, R.J. Prenger, et al. 2008. Identifying natural images from human brain activity. Nature 452 (7185): 352–355. · DOI
  16. Horikawa, T., M. Tamaki, Y. Miyawaki, et al. 2013. Neural decoding of visual imagery during sleep. Science 340 (6132): 639. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234330. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Moses, D.A., M.K. Leonard, J.G. Makin, et al. 2019. Real-time decoding of question-and-answer speech dialogue using human cortical activity. Nature Communications 10 (1): 3096. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10994-4. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Hubbard, J., A. Kikumoto, and U. Mayr. 2019. EEG decoding reveals the strength and temporal dynamics of goal-relevant representations. Scientific Reports 9 (1): 9051. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45333-6. · DOI
  19. Omurtag, A., H. Aghajani, and H.O. Keles. 2017. Decoding human mental states by whole-head EEG+fNIRS during category fluency task performance. Journal of Neural Engineering 14 (6): 066003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aa814b [published Online First: 2017/07/22]. · DOI
  20. Faurholt-Jepsen, M., J. Busk, M. Frost, et al. 2016. Voice analysis as an objective state marker in bipolar disorder. Translational Psychiatry 6 (7): e856–e956. https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2016.123. · DOI
  21. Wexler, A., and P.B. Reiner. 2019. Oversight of direct-to-consumer neurotechnologies. Science 363 (6424): 234. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav0223. · DOI
  22. Glanz, O., J. Derix, R. Kaur, et al. 2018. Real-life speech production and perception have a shared premotor-cortical substrate. Scientific Reports 8 (1): 8898. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26801-x. · DOI
  23. Koch, C., M. Massimini, M. Boly, et al. 2016. Neural correlates of consciousness: Progress and problems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 17 (5): 307. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Bauer, P.J., T. Pathman, C. Inman, et al. 2017. Neural correlates of autobiographical memory retrieval in children and adults. Memory 25 (4): 450–466. · DOI
  25. Greenberg, A. 2019. Inside the mind’s eye: An international perspective on data privacy law in the age of brain machine interfaces. 29: 79. · DOI
  26. Rainey, S., K. McGillivray, S. Akintoye, et al. 2020. Is the European Data Protection Regulation sufficient to deal with emerging data concerns relating to neurotechnology? Journal of Law and the Biosciences; 7(1):lsaa051 https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa051. · DOI
  27. Obar, J.A., and A. Oeldorf-Hirsch. 2020. The biggest lie on the internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Information, Communication & Society 23 (1): 128–147. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Goering, S., and R. Yuste. 2016. On the necessity of ethical guidelines for novel neurotechnologies. Cell 167 (4): 882–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.10.029. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Eaton, M.L., and J. Illes. 2007. Commercializing cognitive neurotechnology—the ethical terrain. Nature biotechnology 25 (4): 393–397. · DOI
  30. Dasgupta, I. 2020. Assessing current mechanisms for the regulation of direct-to-consumer neurotechnology. In Developments in neuroethics and bioethics, 233–65. Elsevier. · DOI
  31. Baselga-Garriga, C., P. Rodriguez, and R. Yuste. 2022. Neuro rights: A human rights solution to ethical issues of neurotechnologies, 157–161. Protecting the Mind: Springer.
  32. Voeneky, S. 2020. Implementation and enforcement of international humanitarian law. In The handbook of international humanitarian law, ed. Fleck D, 4th ed, 647–700. · DOI
  33. Kuehn, B.M. 2013. Groups experiment with digital tools for patient consent. JAMA 310 (7): 678–680. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.194643. · DOI
  34. IEEE. 2020. Standards Roadmap: Neurotechnologies for Brain-Machine Interfacing, 1–100. IEEE.
  35. Ienca, M., and R. Andorno. 2017. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 13 (1): 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1 [published Online First: 2017/04/27]. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Ienca, M. 2021. On neurorights. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15. · DOI
  37. Herrera-Ferrá, K., J. M. Muñoz, H. Nicolini, et al. 2022. Contextual and cultural perspectives on neurorights: Reflections toward an international consensus. AJOB Neuroscience 1–9. · DOI
  38. Kellmeyer, P. 2022. Neurorights: A Human-Rights Based Approach for Governing Neurotechnologies. In The Cambridge Handbook of Responsible Artificial Intelligence - Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 1st ed: Cambridge University Press. · DOI

Cited by

See all 101

Metadata

Authors
Ienca, M., Fins, J. J., Jox, R. J., Jotterand, F., Voeneky, S., Andorno, R., Ball, T., Castelluccia, C., Chavarriaga, R., Chneiweiss, H., Ferretti, A., Friedrich, O., Hurst, S., Merkel, G., Molnár-Gábor, F., Rickli, J.-M., Scheibner, J., Vayena, E., Yuste, R., & Kellmeyer, P.
Venue
Neuroethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-06-03
Volume
15
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 1874-5490
  • 1874-5504
DOI
10.1007/s12152-022-09498-8
Cited by
101
References
8
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Universitätsklinikum Freiburg

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards a Governance Framework for Brain Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s12152-022-09498-8
The paper
Ienca, M., Fins, J. J., Jox, R. J., Jotterand, F., Voeneky, S., Andorno, R., Ball, T., Castelluccia, C., Chavarriaga, R., Chneiweiss, H., Ferretti, A., Friedrich, O., Hurst, S., Merkel, G., Molnár-Gábor, F., Rickli, J.-M., Scheibner, J., Vayena, E., Yuste, R., & Kellmeyer, P. (2022). Towards a Governance Framework for Brain Data. Neuroethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09498-8

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.