Cited by 77Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Ethical aspects of BCI technology: What is the state of the art?

Open access
Coin, Allen, Mulder, Megan, Dubljević, Veljko·2020·Philosophies

Abstract

Brain–Computer Interface (BCI) technology is a promising research area in many domains. Brain activity can be interpreted through both invasive and non-invasive monitoring devices, allowing for novel, therapeutic solutions for individuals with disabilities and for other non-medical applications. However, a number of ethical issues have been identified from the use of BCI technology. In this paper, we review the academic discussion of the ethical implications of BCI technology in the last five years. We conclude that some emerging applications of BCI technology—including commercial ventures that seek to meld human intelligence with AI—present new and unique ethical concerns. Further, we seek to understand how academic literature on the topic of BCIs addresses these novel concerns. Similar to prior work, we use a limited sample to identify trends and areas of concern or debate among researchers and ethicists. From our analysis, we identify two key areas of BCI ethics that warrant further research: the physical and psychological effects of BCI technology. Additionally, questions of BCI policy have not yet become a frequent point of discussion in the relevant literature on BCI ethics, and we argue this should be addressed in future work. We provide guiding questions that will help ethicists and policy makers grapple with the most important issues associated with BCI technology.

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 · 10.3390/philosophies5040031

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • 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].”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coin, A., Mulder, M., & Dubljević, V.
Affiliations
North Carolina State University (US)
Corresponding author
Dubljević, Veljko
Venue
Philosophies
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-10-24
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
31
ISSN
2409-9287 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3093538032
Cited by
77
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
5.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
North Carolina State University
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, assistive technology for people with disabilities, human-AI integration, ethics of emerging technologies

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