CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117Free Will and AgencyCybernetics and Technology in SocietyEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

Doing things with thoughts: brain–computer interfaces and disembodied agency

Open access
Steinert, Steffen, Bublitz, Christoph, Jox, Ralf, Friedrich, Orsolya·2019·Philosophy & Technology
DOI 10.1007/s13347-018-0308-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Connecting human minds to various technological devices and applications through brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) affords intriguingly novel ways for humans to engage and interact with the world. Not only do BCIs play an important role in restorative medicine, they are also increasingly used outside of medical or therapeutic contexts (e.g., gaming or mental state monitoring). A striking peculiarity of BCI technology is that the kind of actions it enables seems to differ from paradigmatic human actions, because, effects in the world are brought about by devices such as robotic arms, prosthesis, or other machines, and their execution runs through a computer directed by brain signals. In contrast to usual forms of action, the sequence does not need to involve bodily or muscle movements at all. A motionless body, the epitome of inaction, might be acting. How do theories of action relate to such BCI-mediated forms of changing the world? We wish to explore this question through the lenses of three perspectives on agency: subjective experience of agency, philosophical action theory, and legal concepts of action. Our analysis pursues three aims: First, we shall discuss whether and which BCI-mediated events qualify as actions, according to the main concepts of action in philosophy and law. Secondly, en passant , we wish to highlight the ten most interesting novelties or peculiarities of BCI-mediated movements. Thirdly, we seek to explore whether these novel forms of movement may have consequences for concepts of agency. More concretely, we think that convincing assessments of BCI-movements require more fine-grained accounts of agency and a distinction between various forms of control during movements. In addition, we show that the disembodied nature of BCI-mediated events causes troubles for the standard legal account of actions as bodily movements. In an exchange with views from philosophy, we wish to propose that the law ought to reform its concept of action to include some, but not all, BCI-mediated events and sketch some of the wider implications this may have, especially for the venerable legal idea of the right to freedom of thought. In this regard, BCIs are an example of the way in which technological access to yet largely sealed-off domains of the person may necessitate adjusting normative boundaries between the personal and the social sphere.

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/s13347-018-0308-4

Cites

7 of 7 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?

  • Without robust psychological-ethical safeguards-e.g., protections for agency, informed consent, reversibility, and meaningful human control-BCIs risk normalizing forms of heteronomy that erode the subjective capacities on which peace-oriented cognition and behavior depend.

    “Accordingly, without robust psychological–ethical safeguards—e.g., protections for agency, informed consent, reversibility, and meaningful human control—BCIs risk normalizing forms of heteronomy that erode the subjective capacities on which peace-oriented cognition and behavior depend (Steinert et al., 2019).”

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

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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: 70

  1. Aflalo, T., Kellis, S., Klaes, C., Lee, B., Shi, Y., Pejsa, K., et al. (2015). Decoding motor imagery from the posterior parietal cortex of a tetraplegic human. Science, 348(6237), 906-910. https://doi.org/10.1126 /science.aaa5417. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ahn, M., Lee, M., Choi, J., & Jun, S. (2014). A review of brain-computer interface games and an opinion survey from researchers, developers and users. Sensors, 14(8), 14601-14633. https://doi.org/10.3390 /s140814601. · DOI
  3. Bashford, L., Mehring, C., & Serino, A., (2016). Ownership and Agency of an Independent Supernumerary Hand Induced by an Imitation Brain-Computer Interface. PLoS One, 11(6):e0156591
  4. Bratman, M. E. (1987). Intention, plans and practical reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  5. Bublitz, C. (2016). Der rechtliche Handlungsbegriff. In M. Kühler & M. Rüther (Eds.), Handbuch der Handlungstheorie (pp. 389-393). Stuttgart: Metzler.
  6. Clarke, A. (2010). Skilled activity and the causal theory of action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80(3), 523-550.
  7. Clausen, J., Fetz, E., Donoghue, J., Ushiba, J., Spörhase, U., Chandler, J., et al. (2017). Help, hope, and hype: ethical dimensions of neuroprosthetics. Science, 356(6345), 1338-1339.
  8. Danto, A. C. (1973). Analytic philosophy of action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Davidson, D. (2001, orig. 1963). Actions, reasons, and causes. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Essays on actions and events (2nd ed.) (pp. 3-19). Oxford: University Press.
  10. Do, A. H., Wang, P. T., King, C. E., Chun, S. N., & Nenadic, Z. (2013). Brain-computer interface controlled robotic gait orthosis. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 10, 111. https://doi.org/10.1186 /1743-0003-10-111. · DOI
  11. Evans, N., Gale, S., Schurger, A., & Blanke, O. (2015). Visual feedback dominates the sense of agency for brain-machine actions. PLoS One, 10(6), e0130019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130019. · DOI
  12. Fletcher, G. P. (2007). The grammar of criminal law: American, comparative, and international: volume one: foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Ford, A. (2016). The Province of Human Agency. Noûs Frankfurt, H. G. (1978). The Problem of Action, American Philosophical Quarterly, 15(2), 157-62.
  14. Galan, F., Nuttin, M., Lew, E., Ferrez, P. W., Vanacker, G., Philips, J., & Millan Jdel, R. (2008). A brain- actuated wheelchair: asynchronous and non-invasive brain-computer interfaces for continuous control of robots. Clinical Neurophysiology, 119(9), 2159-2169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2008.06.001. · DOI
  15. Gallagher, S. (2012). Multiple aspects in the sense of agency. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.003. · DOI
  16. Glannon, W. (2014a). Neuromodulation, agency and autonomy. Brain Topography, 27(1), 46-54. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10548-012-0269-3. · DOI
  17. Glannon, W. (2014b). Prostheses for the will. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 79. https://doi. org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00079. · DOI
  18. Goldman, A. (1970). A theory of human action. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
  19. Graimann, B., Allison, B., & Pfurtscheller, G. (2009). Brain-computer interfaces: a gentle introduction. In B. Graimann, G. Pfurtscheller, & B. Allison (Eds.), Brain-computer interfaces. Berlin, Heidelberg: Heidelberg: Springer.
  20. Haselager, P. (2013). Did I do that? Brain-computer interfacing and the sense of agency. Minds and Machines, 23(3), 405-418.
  21. Himmelreich, J. (2016). Agency and embodiment: groups, human-machine interactions, and virtual realities. Ratio. Online First. https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12158. · DOI
  22. Hohne, J., Schreuder, M., Blankertz, B., & Tangermann, M. (2011). A novel 9-class auditory ERP paradigm driving a predictive text entry system. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 5, 99. https://doi.org/10.3389 /fnins.2011.00099. · DOI
  23. Hornsby, J. (1980). Actions. London: Routledge.
  24. Husak, D. (2006). Rethinking the act requirement. Cardozo Law Review, 28, 2437.
  25. Hieronymi, P. (2009). Two kinds of agency. In L. O'Brien & M. Soteriou (Eds.), Mental actions (pp. 137- 162). Oxford: OUP.
  26. Kaufmann, T., Herweg, A., & Kübler, A. (2014). Toward brain-computer interface based wheelchair control utilizing tactually-evoked event-related potentials. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 11(1),7
  27. Kellmeyer, P., Cochrane, T., Müller, O., Mitchell, C., Ball, T., Fins, J. J., & Biller-Andorno, N. (2016). The effects of closed-loop medical devices on the autonomy and accountability of persons and systems. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 25(04), 623-633. https://doi.org/10.1017 /S0963180116000359. · DOI
  28. Kotchetkov, I. S., Hwang, B. Y., Appelboom, G., Kellner, C. P., & Connolly, E. S. (2010). Brain-computer interfaces: military, neurosurgical, and ethical perspective. Neurosurgical Focus, 28(5), E25. https://doi. org/10.3171/2010. · DOI
  29. FOCUS1027. · DOI
  30. LaFleur, K., Cassady, K., Doud, A., Shades, K., Rogin, E., & He, B. (2013). Quadcopter control in three- dimensional space using a noninvasive motor imagery-based brain-computer interface. Journal of Neural Engineering, 10(4), 046003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/10/4/046003. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Lavin, D. (2013). Must there be basic action? Noûs, 47(2), 273-301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0068.2012.00876.x. · DOI
  32. Lebedev, M. A., & Nicolelis, M. A. (2006). Brain-machine interfaces: past, present and future. Trends in Neurosciences, 29(9), 536-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2006.07.004. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Libet, B. (1999). Do we have free will? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(8-9), 47-57.
  34. Lim, C. G., Lee, T. S., Guan, C., Fung, D. S., Zhao, Y., Teng, S. S., et al. (2012). A brain-computer interface based attention training program for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. PLoS One, 7(10), e46692. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046692. · DOI
  35. Limerick, H., Coyle, D., & Moore, J. W. (2014). The experience of agency in human-computer interactions: a review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 643. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00643. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Looned, R., Webb, J., Xiao, Z. G., & Menon, C. (2014). Assisting drinking with an affordable BCI-controlled wearable robot and electrical stimulation: a preliminary investigation. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 11, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-11-51. · DOI
  37. Lumer, C. (2017). Automatic actions: agency, intentionality, and responsibility. Philosophical Psychology, 1- 29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2017.1291928. · DOI
  38. Mak, J. N., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2009). Clinical applications of brain-computer interfaces: current state an future prospects. IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 2, 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1109 /rbme.2009.2035356. · DOI
  39. Martel, A., Dahne, S., & Blankertz, B. (2014). EEG predictors of covert vigilant attention. Journal of Neural Engineering, 11(3), 035009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/11/3/035009. · DOI
  40. Mele, A. R. (1997). Agency and mental action. Noûs, 31, 231-249. https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.31. s11.11. Mele, A. R. (1992). Springs of action: understanding intentional behavior. New York: Oxford University Press. · DOI
  41. Metzinger, T. K. (2017). The problem of mental action. In T. K. Metzinger & W. Wiese (Eds.), Philosophy and predictive processing. Theoretical Philosophy/MIND Group -JGU Mainz.
  42. Metzinger, T. (2013). The myth of cognitive agency: subpersonal thinking as a cyclically recurring loss of mental autonomy. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00931. · DOI
  43. Moore, J. W., & Fletcher, P. C. (2012). Sense of agency in health and disease: a review of cue integration approaches. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.08.010. · DOI
  44. Moore, J. W. (2016). What is the sense of agency and why does it matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01272. · DOI
  45. Moore, M. S. (2010). Act and crime: the philosophy of action and its implications for criminal law. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  46. Mühl, C., Allison, B., Nijholt, A., & Chanel, G. (2014). A survey of affective brain computer interfaces: principles, state-of-the-art, and challenges. Brain-Computer Interfaces, 1(2), 66-84. https://doi. org/10.1080/2326263X.2014.912881. · DOI
  47. O'Connor, T. (2002). Persons and causes: the metaphysics of free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  48. Pacherie, E. (2007). The sense of control and the sense of agency. Psyche, 13(1), 1-30.
  49. Proust, J. (2001). A plea for mental acts. Synthese, 129(1), 105-128.
  50. Roxin, C. (1962). Zur Kritik der finalen Handlungslehre. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 74(4), 515-561.
  51. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  52. Sato, A., & Yasuda, A. (2005). Illusion of sense of self-agency: discrepancy between the predicted and actual sensory consequences of actions modulates the sense of self-agency, but not the sense of self-ownership. Cognition, 94(3), 241-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.04.003. · DOI
  53. Schlosser, M. (2011). Agency, ownership, and the standard theory. In J. Aguilar, A. Buckareff, & K. Frankish (Eds.), New waves in philosophy of action (pp. 13-31). Basingstoke: Macmillan.
  54. Schlosser, M. E. (2010). Bending it like Beckham: movement, control and deviant causal chains. Analysis, 70(2), 299-303. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anp176. · DOI
  55. Shepherd, J. (2015). Conscious control over action. Mind & Language, 30(3), 320-344. https://doi. org/10.1111/mila.12082. · DOI
  56. Soon, C. S., He, A. H., Bode, S., & Haynes, J. D. (2013). Predicting free choices for abstract intentions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(15), 6217-6222.
  57. Sreedharan, S., Sitaram, R., Paul, J. S., & Kesavadas, C. (2013). Brain-computer interfaces for neurorehabilitation. Critical Review in Biomedical Engineering, 41(3), 269-279.
  58. Strawson, G. (2003). Mental ballistics or the involuntariness of spontaneity. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 103, 227-256.
  59. Stout, R. (2006). Action. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press Retrieved from http://site.ebrary. com/id/10455594.
  60. Synofzik, M., & Vosgerau, G. (2012). Beyond the comparator model. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 1- 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.01.007. · DOI
  61. Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., & Newen, A. (2008). I move, therefore I am: a new theoretical framework to investigate agency and ownership. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(2), 411-424. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.concog.2008.03.008. · DOI
  62. Tamburrini, G. (2009). Brain to computer communication: ethical perspectives on interaction models. Neuroethics, 2(3), 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-009-9040-1. · DOI
  63. Tidoni, E., Gergondet, P., Kheddar, A., & Aglioti, S. M. (2014). Audio-visual feedback improves the BCI performance in the navigational control of a humanoid robot. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 8, 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2014.00020. · DOI
  64. Vierkant, T. (2018). Choice in a two systems world: picking & weighing or managing & metacognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 17(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-016-9493-8. · DOI
  65. Vlek, R., van Acken, J.-P., Beursken, E., Roijendijk, L., & Haselager, P. (2014). BCI and a User's judgment of agency. In G. Grübler & E. Hildt (Eds.), Brain-computer-interfaces in their ethical, social and cultural contexts (Vol. 12, pp. 193-202). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands Retrieved from http://link.springer. com/10.1007/978-94-017-8996-7_16. · DOI
  66. Wegner, D. M., Sparrow, B., & Winerman, L. (2004). Vicarious agency: experiencing control over the movements of others. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 86(6), 838-848. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.838. · DOI
  67. Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  68. Wu, W. (2013). Mental action and the threat of automaticity. In A. Clark, J. Kiverstein, & T. Vierkant (Eds.), Decomposing the will (pp. 244-261). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
  69. Zander, T. O., & Kothe, C. (2011). Towards passive brain-computer interfaces: applying brain-computer interface technology to human-machine systems in general. Journal of Neural Engineering, 8(2), 025005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/025005. · DOI
  70. Zander, T. O., Kothe, C., Jatzev, S., & Gaertner, M. (2010). Enhancing Human-Computer Interaction with Input from Active and Passive Brain-Computer Interfaces. In D. S. Tan & A. Nijholt (Eds.), Brain- Computer Interfaces (pp. 181-199). London: Springer London.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steinert, S., Bublitz, C., Jox, R., & Friedrich, O.
Affiliations
  • Institut für Ethik, Geschichte und Theorie der Medizin (DE)
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Steinert, Steffen
ORCID
Venue
Philosophy & Technology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-03-10
Volume
32
Issue
3
Pages
457-482
ISSN
  • 2210-5433 (ISSN-L)
  • 2210-5441
DOI
10.1007/s13347-018-0308-4
OpenAlex
W2789829182
Cited by
117
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
FWCI
8.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Philosophy & Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GP1622A)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
brain-computer interface, philosophy of action

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