Advertisement

Brain–Computer Interfaces and User Responsibility

  • Fiachra O’BrolchainEmail author
  • Bert Gordijn
Chapter
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 12)

Abstract

Brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) allow people to control external devices using only the power of their thoughts. This chapter explores BCIs in terms of individual user responsibility. Firstly, BCIs are introduced. Following this, the concept of individual responsibility is discussed. After that three novel aspects of BCIs that will have an impact on user responsibility are outlined. These are the control of external things via the mind alone, the possibility of subconscious thoughts as actuators of BCI devices, and mind-melding via BCIs. Then the analysis focuses on claims regarding (a) the effect of BCIs on the extent of responsibility, and (b) the allocation of responsibility.

Keywords

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Deep Brain Stimulation Moral Responsibility User Responsibility External Device 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anthony, Sebastian. 2012. Hackers backdoor the human brain, successfully extract sensitive data. ExtremeTech. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134682-hackers-backdoor-the-human-brain-successfully-extract-sensitive-data
  2. Aristotle. 1985. Nicomachean ethics. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  3. Clausen, J. 2009. Man, machine and in between. Nature 457(7233): 1080–1081. doi: 10.1038/4571080a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA. 2009. Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget estimates: Research, development, test and evaluation, defense-wide. http://websearch.darpa.mil/search?q=cache:sVHHsSY9hLQJ:www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx%3Fid%3D538+Silent+Talk&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&site=default_collection&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&oe=UTF-8.
  5. École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. 2011. Nissan teams up with EPFL for futurist car interfaces. EPFL News Mediacom. http://actu.epfl.ch/news/nissan-teams-up-with-epfl-for-futurist-car-interfa
  6. Edlinger, G., C. Holzner, and C. Guger. 2011. A Hybrid Brain-Computer Interface for Smart Home Control. In Human-computer interaction. Interaction techniques and environments, ed. J.A. Jacko, 417–426. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-21605-3_46
  7. Foster, K.R. 2006. Engineering the brain. In Neuroethics: Defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy, ed. Judy Illes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. George, M.S., Z. Nahas, M. Molloy, A.M. Speer, N.C. Oliver, X.-B. Li, and J.C. Ballenger. 2000. A controlled trial of daily left prefrontal cortex TMS for treating depression. Biological Psychiatry 48(10): 962–970. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3223(00)01048-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gordijn, B. 2006. Converging NBIC technologies for improving human performance: A critical assessment of the novelty and the prospects of the project. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34(4): 726–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordijn, B., and A.M. Buyx. 2010. Neural engineering. The challenges ahead. In Scientific and philosophical perspectives in neuroethics, ed. J. Giordano and B. Gordijn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Grübler, G. 2011. Beyond the responsibility gap. Discussion note on responsibility and liability in the use of brain-computer interfaces. AI and Society 26(4): 377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Halperin, D., T.S. Heydt-Benjamin, B. Ransford, S.S. Clark, B. Defend, W. Morgan, and W.H. Maisel. 2008. Pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators: Software radio attacks and zero-power defenses. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 129–142. doi: 10.1109/SP.2008.31.
  13. Harris, P. 2011. BrainGate gives paralysed the power of mind control. The Guardian, Apr 17. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/17/brain-implant-paralysis-movement.
  14. Hoag, H. 2003. Neuroengineering: Remote control. Nature 423(6942): 796–798. doi: 10.1038/423796a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holm, S., and T.C. Voo. 2011. Brain-machine interfaces and personal responsibility for action – maybe not as complicated after all. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 4(3). doi: 10.2202/1941-6008.1153.
  16. Koberda, J.L., D.S. Hillier, B. Jones, A. Moses, and L. Koberda. 2012. Application of neurofeedback in general neurology practice. Journal of Neurotherapy 16(3): 231–234. doi: 10.1080/10874208.2012.705770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kotchetkov, I.S., B.Y. Hwang, G. Appelboom, C.P. Kellner, and E.S. Connolly Jr. 2010. Brain-computer interfaces: Military, neurosurgical, and ethical perspective. Neurosurgical Focus 28(5): E25. doi: 10.3171/2010.2.FOCUS1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lang, Y., P. Du, and H.-C. Shin. 2011. Encoding-based brain-computer interface controlled by non-motor area of rat brain. Science China. Life Sciences 54(9): 841–853. doi: 10.1007/s11427-011-4214-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lucivero, F., and G. Tamburrini. 2008. Ethical monitoring of brain-machine interfaces. AI & Society 22(3): 449–460. doi: 10.1007/s00146-007-0146-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, Richard. 2005. Mind control. Wired, Mar 13. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/brain.html.
  21. Martinovic, I., D. Davies, M. Frank, D. Perito, T. Ros, and D. Song. 2012. On the feasibility of side-channel attacks with brain-computer interfaces. Presented at the 21st USENIC security symposium, Bellevie, WA.Google Scholar
  22. Matthias, A. 2004. The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology 6(3): 175–183. doi: 10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McGee, E.M., and G.Q. Maguire Jr. 2007. Becoming Borg to become immortal: Regulating brain implant technologies. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, CQ, The International Journal of Healthcare Ethics Committees 16(3): 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schermer, M. 2009. The mind and the machine. On the conceptual and moral implications of brain-machine interaction. Nanoethics 3(3): 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Science Daily. 2009. Applause for the SmartHand. http://phys.org/news176564795.html.
  26. Talwar, S.K., S. Xu, E.S. Hawley, S.A. Weiss, K.A. Moxon, and J.K. Chapin. 2002. Behavioural neuroscience: Rat navigation guided by remote control. Nature 417(6884): 37–38. doi: 10.1038/417037a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tamburrini, G. 2009. Brain to computer communication: Ethical perspectives on interaction models. Neuroethics 2(3): 137–149. doi: 10.1007/s12152-009-9040-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thompson, Dennis F. 1980. Moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands. The American Political Science Review 74(4): 905–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vernon, D.J. 2005. Can neurofeedback training enhance performance? An evaluation of the evidence with implications for future research. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback 30(4): 347–364.Google Scholar
  30. Vincent, N.A. 2009. Neuroimaging and responsibility assessments. SSRN eLibrary. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1519431
  31. Vincent, N. 2010. On the relevance of neuroscience to criminal responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4(1): 77–98. doi: 10.1007/s11572-009-9087-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weaver, F.M., and F.K. Follett. 2009. Bilateral deep brain stimulation vs best medical therapy for patients with advanced Parkinson disease: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 301(1): 63–73. doi: 10.1001/jama.2008.929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EthicsDublin City UniversityDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations