CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Ethical considerations for the use of brain–computer interfaces for cognitive enhancement

Open access
Gordon, Emma C., Seth, Anil K.·2024·PLOS Biology
DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002899PMC PMC11542783
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) enable direct communication between the brain and external computers, allowing processing of brain activity and the ability to control external devices. While often used for medical purposes, BCIs may also hold great promise for nonmedical purposes to unlock human neurocognitive potential. In this Essay, we discuss the prospects and challenges of using BCIs for cognitive enhancement, focusing specifically on invasive enhancement BCIs (eBCIs). We discuss the ethical, legal, and scientific implications of eBCIs, including issues related to privacy, autonomy, inequality, and the broader societal impact of cognitive enhancement technologies. We conclude that the development of eBCIs raises challenges far beyond practical pros and cons, prompting fundamental questions regarding the nature of conscious selfhood and about who—and what—we are, and ought, to be.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This Essay examines the prospects and ethical challenges of invasive brain–computer interfaces for cognitive enhancement (eBCIs), arguing that development raises concerns beyond practical pros and cons. The authors conclude that a middle way is needed between techno-optimism and bioconservatism, while acknowledging deep scientific, engineering, and philosophical uncertainties.

Key findings

  • Current invasive BCIs face severe engineering limits: state-of-the-art probes use around 1,000 electrodes, each typically detecting only a few individual neurons after spike sorting, a tiny sample of the roughly 16 billion cortical neurons in adult humans; ECoG grids are limited to a few hundred surface electrodes.
  • Scientific challenges are greater still: neurocognitive processes are difficult to localise to single regions or neuronal assemblies, involve chemical neurotransmitters and non-neural cells, and may extend beyond the brain, so there is unlikely to be a simple mapping from an enhancement goal to a single neuronal target.
  • The Essay canvasses six key ethical challenges for eBCIs: erosion of privacy and “brainjacking,” inequality and a possible cognitive divide, mental monoculture, inauthenticity, cheapened achievements, and loss of autonomy versus hyperagency.
  • The authors argue that separating medical from enhancement applications will likely be very difficult in practice, and that eBCI development raises fundamental questions about conscious selfhood and who—and what—we are and ought to be.

Methods

  • Design: conceptual and normative Essay, not an empirical study.
  • Data or sample: no data or sample; the paper reviews and analyses ethical, legal, and scientific implications of invasive BCIs for cognitive enhancement.
  • Main analysis: philosophical discussion organised around feasibility constraints and six ethical challenges (Box 1), with reference to existing regulatory initiatives and recommendations.

Limitations

  • Stated: a full discussion of what the “middle ground” between techno-optimism and bioconservatism might look like is beyond the Essay’s scope; the focus is on invasive BCIs, and the authors note that noninvasive eBCIs will present a rather different ethical picture; implementation of recommended regulations may face practical hurdles.
  • Evident: the paper presents no empirical data, systematic review, or stakeholder analysis, and its arguments about future eBCIs are conceptual and speculative rather than tested.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002899

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

18 of 49 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Cognitive diversity is important for innovation.

    “Cognitive diversity is also important for innovation [54]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [54] A Lungeanu, 2015, The effects of diversity and network ties on innovations: The emergence of a new scientific field., Am Behav Sci source
  • Premisecitation

    Advances in engineering and materials science are promising major improvements in electrode number and density, potentially reaching many thousands for both depth electrode and ECoG approaches.

    “Advances in engineering and materials science are promising major improvements in electrode number and density, potentially reaching many thousands for both depth electrode and ECoG approaches [20].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] Y Tchoe, 2022, Human brain mapping with multithousand-channel PtNRGrids resolves spatiotemporal dynamics, Sci Transl Med source

      The Introduction describes advances in thin-film fabrication and platinum-nanorod materials used to make ECoG grids with thousands of channels. It contrasts these surface grids with penetrating arrays, but does not establish that depth electrodes could likewise reach many thousands of electrodes. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Current ECoG grids are limited to a few hundred surface electrodes.

    “Current ECoG grids are also limited to a few hundred surface electrodes [15].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] SL Metzger, 2023, A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control, Nature source

      The Methods section (‘Neural implant’; page unavailable) describes an ECoG array with 253 electrodes implanted on the brain’s surface. That supports ‘a few hundred surface electrodes’ for this grid, but the paper does not establish that current ECoG grids generally are limited to that number. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Brainjacking-where bad actors attempt to gain unauthorised access to neural data-is a threat.

    “Consider, for instance, the threat of “brainjacking”—where bad actors attempt to gain unauthorised (at least, indirect) access to what you are thinking by gaining access to neural data and data pertaining to which thought commands are implemented by the eBCI, or to your neural data more generally [37–40].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [37] EM Kritika, 2024, Neuroethical quandaries at the crossroads of cyberspace., Scientific Practical Cyber Secur J.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [38] M Ienca, 2017, Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology, Life Sci Soc Policy source
    • cites [39] JA Carter, 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [40] MJ Farah, 2004, Monitoring and Manipulating Brain Function: New Neuroscience Technologies and Their Ethical Implications., Hastings Cent Rep source

      The Neuroimaging section (p. 3) says brain imaging can reveal psychological states without a person's cooperation or consent, and Ethical Issues in Neuroimaging (p. 5) identifies privacy as a central concern. The paper does not describe “brainjacking,” bad actors gaining access to neural data, or access to eBCI thought-command data; Pending Challenges (p. 9) also qualifies a serious privacy threat as dependent on further technological progress. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    The idea that the skull marks a meaningful divide behind which a sacrosanct conscious agent orchestrates behaviour is extremely difficult to maintain in the face of philosophical, theoretical, and empirical objections.

    “In the case of free will, the idea that the skull marks a meaningful divide behind which some sacrosanct conscious agent orchestrates behaviour is extremely difficult to maintain in the face of philosophical, theoretical, and empirical objections [64,76–78].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [64] AK Seth, 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [76] KJ Mitchell, 2023 source
    • cites [77] L Mudrik, 2022, Free will without consciousness?, Trends Cogn Sci source

      The introduction discusses neural activity preceding conscious decisions and unconscious influences on decision-making, supporting a challenge to the idea that a conscious agent alone directs behavior. But the paper does not address the skull as a meaningful boundary, and its Concluding remarks say these findings do not threaten free will in general. The claim’s sweeping formulation goes beyond what this source supports. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [78] P. Haggard, 2019, The Neurocognitive Bases of Human Volition., Annu Rev Psychol. source

      Section 6 says evidence from the Libet experiment rules out a Cartesian view in which conscious intention triggers the brain activity leading to movement; Section 2.5 likewise describes conscious volition as a consequence rather than a cause of neural activity. The paper does not address the claimed skull boundary or establish that philosophical, theoretical, and empirical objections collectively make the broader idea untenable. Its conclusion explicitly leaves open whether people have conscious free will. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 16
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 32

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    If eBCIs are expensive and remain so, they would be of limited access, available only to the most privileged, giving them an additional cognitive advantage and potentially widening socioeconomic gaps.

    “In this scenario, eBCIs would be of limited access, available only to the most privileged—thereby giving those already most financially privileged an additional cognitive or intellectual advantage, potentially widening already existing socioeconomic gaps [49–51].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [49] A Coin, 2020, Ethical aspects of BCI technology: What is the state of the art?, Philosophies. source
    • cites [50] A Giubilini, 2019, Enhancing equality., J Medicine Philos source
    • cites [51] J. Savulescu, 2006, Justice, fairness, and enhancement, Ann N Y Acad Sci source
    • The authors state this as an assumption: eBCIs will be expensive and remain so, not cheaply available to everyone.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    The extent to which we should be concerned about eBCIs affecting authenticity largely depends on our understanding of the "true self".

    “The extent to which we should be concerned about eBCIs affecting our authenticity largely depends on our understanding of the “true self” [57].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [57] H Maslen, 2015, The ethics of deep brain stimulation for the treatment of anorexia nervosa, Neuroethics source

      In “Reversibility, Authenticity and Shared Decision-Making” (page unavailable), the paper links concerns about DBS and authenticity to the question of which preferences represent an authentic self. But it discusses DBS for anorexia nervosa, not eBCIs generally, and explicitly recommends assessing preferences over time rather than assuming one self is the “true” self. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    New approaches may alleviate some engineering difficulties, for instance through development of highly flexible probes and conformal ECoG grids.

    “Again, new approaches may alleviate some of these difficulties, for instance through the development of highly flexible probes and conformal ECoG grids [20].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] Y Tchoe, 2022, Human brain mapping with multithousand-channel PtNRGrids resolves spatiotemporal dynamics, Sci Transl Med source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    For depth electrodes, there is potential to implant multiple locations, widening coverage.

    “For depth electrodes, there is also the potential to implant multiple locations, widening coverage [21].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [21] JL Collinger, 2013, High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia, Lancet (London, England). source

      The Methods, under “Array implantation” (page unavailable), report that two intracortical microelectrode arrays were implanted in the left motor cortex. This supports the possibility of multiple implants, but the paper does not say they were placed in multiple locations to widen coverage or make that claim about depth electrodes generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The 'extended mind' literature emphasises that cognitive abilities extend beyond the brain to include the body and parts of the external environment, including tools such as notebooks and mobile phones.

    “In the other direction, an influential literature in the philosophy of mind and cognitive science—the “extended mind”—emphasises that cognitive abilities extend beyond the brain to include the body and parts of the external environment, including tools such as notebooks and mobile phones [22–24].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [22] FJ Varela, 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [23] A Clark, 1998, The extended mind, Analysis source
    • cites [24] Federico Zilio, 2020, Extended mind and the brain-computer interface. A pluralist approach to the human-computer integration, Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Guidance exists for medical BCIs (e.g., FDA, EU), but presently consumer BCIs lack the same kind of regulation.

    “Guidance exists for medical BCIs (for example, in the USA FDA, and also in the EU—see [48]); but presently consumer BCIs lack the same kind of regulation, although some progress is being made (see Box 2) [19].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [48] E. Steindl, 2024, Consumer neuro devices within EU product safety law: Are we prepared for big tech ante portas?, Comput Law Secur Rev source
    • cites [19] S Goering, 2016, On the Necessity of Ethical Guidelines for Novel Neurotechnologies, Cell source

      The passage labeled Abstract (page unavailable) says novel neurotechnologies lack agreed-upon ethical guidelines and that commercial applications would require different regulation and oversight. It does not establish that consumer BCIs currently lack regulation comparable to medical BCIs. The FDA and EU guidance is attached to a different citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.79)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The more information about one's mental activity is available to third parties, the more likely that content and timing of stimuli might be optimised for persuasive impact.

    “For example, the more information about one’s mental activity and patterns is available to third parties, the more likely (as one concern goes) that content and timing of stimuli might be optimised for persuasive impact [41,42].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [41] P. Kellmeyer, 2019, Artificial intelligence in basic and clinical neuroscience: Opportunities and ethical challenges., e-Neuroforum source
    • cites [42] M Kapitonova, 2022, A framework for preserving privacy and cybersecurity in brain-computer interfacingapplications., arXiv source

      Related Work (pp. 23–24) describes using stimuli to infer private information, including subconscious preferences, and discusses restricting third parties’ access to raw EEG data. It does not say that greater access to mental-activity information enables third parties to optimise the content or timing of stimuli for persuasive impact. (LLM, conf=0.80)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Whether the cheapened achievements worry has teeth in the case of BCIs will plausibly depend on factors including the extent to which users rely on the eBCI as a mere tool versus it being deeply integrated into cognitive architecture, and whether eBCI users exhibit other abilities and skills in using eBCIs effectively.

    “whether it has any teeth in the case of BCIs will plausibly depend on factors including the extent to which users rely on the eBCI as a mere tool as opposed to whether it is deeply integrated into our cognitive architecture [73] and whether eBCI users are exhibiting various other abilities and skills in the service of using eBCIs in effective ways [74].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [73] A. Clark, 2008 source
    • cites [74] EC Gordon, 2023, Pharmacological cognitive enhancement and the value of achievements: An intervention., Bioethics. source

      Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    The noninvasive combination of ease of access, lower precision, and emphasis on recording means that the overall ethical picture will look rather different.

    “The noninvasive combination of ease of access, but lower precision and emphasis on recording, means that the overall ethical picture will look rather different [38].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [38] M Ienca, 2017, Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology, Life Sci Soc Policy source

      The neurotechnology revolution section describes noninvasive, scalable consumer devices and widespread noninvasive recording. The mental privacy section links wider availability of brain recordings to privacy risks. But the paper does not establish that noninvasive technologies are generally less precise, and it also describes noninvasive devices that stimulate rather than record brain activity; it does not draw the claimed overall ethical comparison. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The upshot of eBCI-induced standardization may be less cognitive diversity over time, at worst a mental monoculture.

    “The upshot would be less cognitive diversity over time—and at worst a kind of mental monoculture.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: eBCIs will become available easily and cheaply for all, at least in some form.
    • Rests on an assumption: The training data used to optimise eBCIs is unlikely to be representative of the full range of cognitive diversity in society.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    More ambitious eBCI applications (e.g., holding two simultaneous conversations) are psychologically and philosophically implausible, not just scientifically/engineering implausible.

    “Such scenarios are not just implausible by the scientific and engineering criteria discussed earlier; they are psychologically and philosophically implausible too.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    BCIs themselves may help address the scientific challenges by allowing greater precision when recording and stimulating neural populations, and through testing of specific causal hypotheses using neurofeedback.

    “First, BCIs themselves may help address the scientific challenges, by allowing greater precision when recording and stimulating neural populations, and through testing of specific causal hypotheses using neurofeedback.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If the essentialist view of the true self is correct, avoiding eBCIs would be necessary for maintaining authenticity, posing a challenge for eBCI advocates.

    “If this view is correct, it poses a challenge for eBCI advocates, as avoiding these devices would be necessary for maintaining authenticity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    eBCI use may lead to standardization of certain cognitive processes as users adapt to the interface's parameters.

    “Suppose eBCIs lead to a standardization of certain kinds of cognitive processes as users adapt to the interface’s parameters”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: eBCIs will become available easily and cheaply for all, at least in some form.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Embodied aspects of cognition are not necessarily limitations but can also be considered as part of the generative process itself.

    “What’s more, embodied aspects of cognition are not necessarily limitations but can also usefully considered as part of the generative process itself.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    eBCIs provide many new ways in which extended cognitive processes can be implemented, offering an immediacy and directness substantially different from other extended mind situations.

    “eBCIs provide many new ways in which extended cognitive processes can be implemented. They offer an immediacy and directness that seems—at least in principle—substantially different from that offered by other extended mind situations, such as those involving notebooks and phones.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Social or financial privilege may allow access to bespoke eBCIs that do not impose the same requirements on how to think as future mass-market eBCIs.

    “It could even be that social or financial privilege may allow access to “bespoke” eBCIs which, in virtue of being more sophisticated (and expensive) do not impose the same requirements on “how to think” that future mass-market eBCIs would do”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A mental monoculture would lead to societal stasis as the costs of thinking in new ways increase.

    “There is also the wider worry that a mental monoculture would lead to societal stasis as the costs of thinking in new ways increase.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    As users become used to thinking in a particular way to use eBCI technology, these patterns of thinking may become habitual and present more pervasively in users' mental lives.

    “As users become used to thinking in a particular way in order to effectively utilise eBCI technology (and they may well be forced to do so, in order to not fall behind economically—see the previous point), then these patterns of thinking may become habitual and present more pervasively in users’ mental lives.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: eBCIs will become available easily and cheaply for all, at least in some form.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The acquisition of new ways of thinking imposed by an eBCI might be more subtle than language learning, so users may be less appreciative of how their thinking is changing.

    “In the eBCI case, the acquisition of new ways of thinking imposed by the eBCI might be more subtle, such that one might be less appreciative of the ways their thinking is changing than they will (typically at least) be when intentionally taking themselves to be embracing new linguistic capabilities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Various international law frameworks recognise a right not to have one's thoughts or opinions revealed or manipulated.

    “Various international law frameworks recognise a right not to have one’s thoughts or opinions revealed [35] or manipulated [36].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [35] S. Alegre, 2017 source
    • cites [36] J. Slaby, 2022, Expanding the active mind, J Brit Soc Phenomen source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The 'trickle down' process does not always apply; not everyone has a laptop computer, and the rationale has been widely criticised.

    “However, this kind of “trickle down” process does not always apply; not everyone has a laptop computer, and the rationale itself has been widely criticised in its more general economic instantiation [52].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [52] P. Krugman, 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The enhancement potential of eBCIs applies both to individuals and to society at large.

    “The enhancement potential of eBCIs applies both to individuals, and to society at large.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Implementing a novel perceptual modality may be relatively 'plug and play,' but implementing the ability to hold two simultaneous conversations would likely require a wholesale reorganisation of our entire neurocognitive architecture, and likely the body as well.

    “Whereas implementing a novel perceptual modality may be relatively “plug and play,” implementing the ability to hold two simultaneous conversations, for example, would likely require a wholesale reorganisation of our entire neurocognitive architecture, and likely the body as well.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    eBCI algorithms might favour certain thought patterns or be optimised for certain languages or cultural contexts.

    “or (relatedly) the algorithms that eBCIs use might turn out to favour certain thought patterns or be optimised for certain languages or cultural contexts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: eBCIs will become available easily and cheaply for all, at least in some form.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Inequality of access to eBCIs risks a cognitive divide.

    “whereas inequality of access to eBCIs seems to risk a cognitive divide”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The merging of our neurobiology with technology raises fundamental questions about who, and what, we are-and who and what we can, and ought, to be.

    “The merging of our neurobiology with technology raises fundamental questions about who, and what, we are—and who and what we can, and ought, to be.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The crossing of the skull boundary is the most distinguishing feature of BCIs, whether for enhancement or otherwise.

    “It is the crossing of this boundary that seems to be the most distinguishing features of BCIs—whether for enhancement or otherwise.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Recognising the instability of the self may ameliorate authenticity concerns because it opens the possibility of remaining dynamically "true" to a self that is always changing.

    “On the one hand, recognising the instability of the self may ameliorate authenticity concerns, because it opens the possibility of remaining dynamically “true” to a self that is always changing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The importance of the skull may lie in preserving the idea of autonomy, rather than in preserving anything particular about autonomy or agency itself.

    “The importance of the skull may therefore lie in preserving the idea of autonomy, rather than in preserving anything particular about autonomy or agency itself.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Modern (non-BCI) technologies have led to vulnerabilities in both privacy (inside-out) and manipulation (outside-in).

    “After all, modern (non-BCI) technologies have led to all kinds of vulnerabilities in both of the directions we have identified: privacy (inside-out) and manipulation (outside-in).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    If using an eBCI aligns with an individual's endorsed values, there is no apparent reason to believe that one is less authentic when an eBCI is installed.

    “From this perspective, if using an eBCI aligns with an individual’s endorsed values, there is no apparent reason to believe that one is less authentic when an eBCI is installed [62].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [62] D Wasserman, 2008, Issues in the Pharmacological Induction of Emotion., J Appl Philos. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Authenticity concerns may be exacerbated because eBCIs might accelerate changes in experienced selfhood.

    “On the other hand, these concerns are arguably exacerbated because eBCIs might accelerate changes in experienced selfhood”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The boundary of the skull is crossed by all BCIs, though for invasive systems it is crossed in a more profound and permanent way.

    “This boundary is crossed by all BCIs, though for invasive systems it is crossed in a more profound and permanent way.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A boost in personal responsibility may have risks for overall well-being because the more responsible we are, the fewer excuses we have for mistakes or bad choices, and the standard to which we are held may be dauntingly high.

    “Such a boost in personal responsibility, as he sees it, may have its own risks for our overall well-being; the more we are responsible for—i.e., the more we transform into “hyperagents”—the fewer excuses we have for mistakes or bad choices, and the standard to which we are held may be dauntingly high.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [71] MJ Sandel, 2007, The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering, Harvard University Press

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    Once one breaches the skull boundary, no further boundaries remain.

    “This is simply that once one breaches this boundary, no further boundaries remain.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    When we become more capable via enhancement, we thereby become to that extent more responsible for how our lives go.

    “As he sees it, when we become more capable via enhancement, we thereby become to that extent more responsible for how our lives go.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [71] MJ Sandel, 2007, The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering, Harvard University Press

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If eBCIs change what people experience as "will," as well as their ability to exercise it, the explanation that effort is related to valuable exertion of the will becomes complicated.

    “This explanation becomes complicated if eBCIs change what people experience as “will,” as well as their ability to exercise it.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Wearable BCI systems are typically limited to recording (inside-out) and have lower precision than invasive methods.

    “As noted earlier, these technologies are typically limited to recording (inside-out) and have lower precision than invasive methods.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
39 of 39

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    eBCIs will be expensive and remain so, not cheaply available to everyone.

    “Let us assume they are not, and that like other high-end tech products they are expensive and will likely remain so.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    We can create eBCIs that satisfactorily address practicality/feasibility issues.

    “on the assumption that we can create eBCIs that satisfactorily address practicality/feasibly issues”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Wealthy individuals with cognitive advantages will gain more wealth and further cognitive advantages in a reinforcing feedback loop.

    “if the wealthy have cognitive advantages that lead to more wealth and further cognitive advantages (in a reinforcing feedback loop)”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Current invasive BCI probes record from only a tiny fraction of neurons (around 1,000 electrodes out of about 16 billion cortical neurons).

    “Current invasive BCI probes record from only a tiny fraction of neurons. The current state of the art lies at around 1,000 electrodes, each typically detecting only a few individual neurons after software-based spike sorting. This is a tiny sample of the total cortical neuronal population (about 16 billion in adult humans).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Implanted electrodes tend to detach and move after implantation, potentially damaging surrounding neural tissue.

    “Some other engineering challenges pertain specifically to implanted electrodes, which have a tendency to detach, and to move around after implantation, potentially damaging surrounding neural tissue.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Preventing inflammation and other damaging immune responses to BCI implantation is difficult, as is maintaining long-term power and functionality.

    “Preventing inflammation and other damaging immune responses to BCI implantation is also difficult, as is maintaining long-term power and functionality.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Understanding how the brain works is still a scientific project in relative infancy.

    “It barely needs saying that understanding how the brain works is still a scientific project in relative infancy.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Neurocognitive processes are difficult to localise to a single brain region or neuronal assembly.

    “It has become increasingly apparent that neurocognitive processes are difficult to localise to a single brain region or neuronal assembly.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most or all neurocognitive processes involve not just neuronal activity, but also chemical neurotransmitters and non-neural brain cells such as glial cells.

    “Also, most or all such processes involve not just neuronal activity, but encompass a broad range of neurophysiological factors, including chemical neurotransmitters and activity of non-neural brain cells such as glial cells.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Interpretation of eBCI data is likely less than fully accurate.

    “A variation of these risks arises when we consider that interpretation of eBCI data is likely less than fully accurate.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Machine learning algorithms can allow powerful classification and prediction given sufficient data without understanding the processes that generated the data.

    “In the outside-in direction, machine learning algorithms can allow powerful classification and prediction given sufficient data without any (or very much) understanding of the processes that generated these data.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    eBCIs will become available easily and cheaply for all, at least in some form.

    “Let us now suppose that eBCIs do indeed become available easily and cheaply for all, at least in some form.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The training data used to optimise eBCIs is unlikely to be representative of the full range of cognitive diversity in society.

    “This might initially happen because of the nature of the training data used to optimise the eBCI, which is unlikely to be representative of the full range of cognitive diversity in society.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Separating medical from enhancement applications of eBCIs will be very difficult in practice.

    “There is also the pragmatic issue that separating medical from enhancement applications will likely be very difficult in practice.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The more obviously justifiable benefits of medical applications may put pressure on any attempt to introduce regulation for eBCIs.

    “Relatedly, the more obviously justifiable benefits of medical applications may put pressure on any attempt to introduce any form of regulation for eBCIs”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Invasive BCI technologies are less likely to see near-term widespread deployment than wearable BCIs based on EEG and other noninvasive imaging methods.

    “While potentially transformational, these technologies are less likely to see near-term widespread deployment than wearable BCIs based on EEG and other noninvasive imaging methods.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is already a vibrant consumer market for wearable BCI systems.

    “There is already a vibrant consumer market for wearable BCI systems.”
17 of 17

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Recorded-data classification is assigned to the wrong BCI direction

    Minor

    The paper defines "outside in" as driving neural activity, but labels machine-learning classification and prediction from recorded data as "outside-in." Under its own definitions, processing recorded neural data is an "inside out" use.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. E Juengst, 2019, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition),
  2. C. Wilson, 2021, David Eagleman interview: How our brains could create whole new senses, New Sci, 250, 46
  3. D. Eagleman, 2020, Livewired: The inside story of the ever-changing brain.
  4. Zheng J, Meister M. The Unbearable Slowness of Being. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408. 2024. 10234.
  5. EM Kritika, 2024, Neuroethical quandaries at the crossroads of cyberspace., Scientific Practical Cyber Secur J.
  6. JA Carter, 2020, The Future of Freedom of Thought: Liberty, Technology, and Neuroscience
  7. A. Schopenhauer, 2015, The World as Will and Idea-Vol
  8. NA Farahany, 2023, The battle for your brain: defending the right to think freely in the age of neurotechnology
  9. P. Krugman, 2020, Arguing with zombies: Economics, politics, and the fight for a better future.
  10. A Reynolds, 2017, Teams solve problems faster when they’re more cognitively diverse., Harv Bus Rev, 30, 1
  11. JP Christman, 1989, The Inner Citadel: Essays on Individual Autonomy
  12. L Kass, 2002, Life, liberty and the defense of dignity, Encounter Books

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gordon, E. C., & Seth, A. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Gordon, Emma C.
  • Seth, Anil K.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS Biology
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2024-10-28
Volume
22
Issue
10
Pages
e3002899
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
DOI
10.1371/journal.pbio.3002899
PMC
PMC11542783
OpenAlex
W4403826690
Cited by
64
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 2
FWCI
14.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2024-11-07)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • European Research Council (101019254)
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (Brain, Mind & Consciousness program)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
brain-computer interface, cognitive enhancement, invasive brain-computer interfaces, ethics of enhancement, privacy, autonomy, inequality, social impact, legal consequences
MeSH terms
Brain, Cognition, Humans, Privacy, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-27.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-27.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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