Advertisement

On Human–Computer Interaction in Brain–Computer Interfaces

  • Gerd GrüblerEmail author
  • Elisabeth Hildt
Chapter
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 12)

Abstract

In this chapter, theoretical reflections on human–computer interaction in brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) are combined with the results of an empirical investigation concerning non-invasive EEG-based BCI users’ experiences with this technology. After a short overview of transhumanist visions in the field of neurotechnology this text discusses some anthropological positions concerning interaction between man and technical devices. The focus will be on the concept of “transparency”. Then some empirical results of a pilot study which investigated BCI users’ experiences concerning human–computer interaction in BCI use are presented and discussed against the anthropological background.

Keywords

Functional Unit Motor Imagery Technical Device Virtual Hand Fake Hand 
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. Birbaumer, N. 1999. Slow cortical potentials: Plasticity, operant control, and behavioral effects. The Neuroscientist 5: 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birbaumer, N. 2006. Brain-computer-interface research: Coming of age. Clinical Neurophysiology 117: 479–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birnbacher, D. 2008. Posthumanity, transhumanism and human nature. In Medical enhancement and posthumanity, ed. B. Gordijn and R. Chadwick, 95–106. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Bostrom, N. 2008. Letter from utopia. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 2(1): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bostrom, N. 2009. Why I want to be a posthuman when I grow up. In Medical enhancement and posthumanity, volume 2 of the international library of ethics, law and technology, ed. B. Gordijn and R. Chadwick, 107–136. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Clausen, J. 2006. Ethische Aspekte von Gehirn-Computer-Schnittstellen in motorischen Neuroprothesen. International Review of Information Ethics IRIE 5(09/2006): 25–32.Google Scholar
  7. Daly, J.J., and J.R. Wolpaw. 2008. Brain-computer interfaces in neurological rehabilitation. Lancet Neurology 7(11): 1032–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Preester, H., and M. Tsakiris. 2009. Body-extension versus body-incorporation: Is there a need for a body-model? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 8(3): 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolezal, L. 2009. The remote body. The phenomenology of telepresence and re-embodiment. Human Technology 5(2): 208–226.Google Scholar
  10. Dornhege, G., J.del.R. Millán, T. Hinterberger, et al. (eds.). 2007. Toward brain-computer interfacing. Cambridge/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fenton, A., and S. Alpert. 2008. Extending our view on using BCIs for locked-in syndrome. Neuroethics 1(2): 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graham, E. 2004. Post and human conditions. Theology and Sexuality 10(2): 10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grübler, G. 2012. Some anthropological implications of brain computer interfaces. Poster presented to the third international workshop of the TOBI-Project, Würzburg.Google Scholar
  14. Grübler, G., A. Al-Khodairy, R. Leeb, I. Pisotta, A. Riccio, M. Rohm, and E. Hildt. 2014. Psychosocial and ethical aspects in non-invasive BCI research – A survey among BCI users and BCI professionals. Neuroethics 7(1): 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haselager, P., R. Vlek, J. Hill, and F. Nijboer. 2009. A note on ethical aspects of BCI. Neural Networks 22(9): 1352–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayles, K. 1999. How we became posthuman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and time. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
  18. Herbrechter, S. 2009. Posthumanismus. Darmstadt: WBG.Google Scholar
  19. Hildt, E. 2010. Brain-computer interaction and medical access to the brain: Individual, social and ethical implications. Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology 4(3).Google Scholar
  20. Hochberg, L.R., and D.M. Taylor. 2007. Intuitive prosthetic limb control. The Lancet 369(9559): 345–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Husserl, E. 1976. Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Den Haag: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  22. Krüger, O. 2004. Virtualität und Unsterblichkeit. Die Visionen des Posthumanismus. Freiburg: Rombach Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Kurzweil, R. 1999. The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  24. Mak, J.N., and J.R. Wolpaw. 2009. Clinical applications of brain-computer interfaces: Current state and future prospects. IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering 2: 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCullagh, P., et al. 2010. Can brain computer interfaces become practical assistive devices in the community? Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 160: 314–318.Google Scholar
  26. McDonnell, P.M., et al. 1989. Do artificial limbs become part of the user? New evidence. Journal of Rehabilitation Research 26(2): 17–24.Google Scholar
  27. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge & K. Paul.Google Scholar
  28. Miah, A. 2008. A critical history of posthumanism. In Medical enhancement and posthumanity, ed. B. Gordijn and R. Chadwick, 71–94. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Millán, J.D. et al. 2010. Combining brain-computer interfaces and assistive technologies: State-of-the-art and challenges. Frontiers in Neuroscience 4.Google Scholar
  30. Minsky, M. 1994. Will robots inherit earth? Scientific American, 271(4): 109-113. http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/sciam.inherit.html
  31. Moravec, H. 1988. Mind children: The future of robot and human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Murray, C.D., and J. Sixsmith. 1999. The corporeal body in virtual reality. Ethos 27(3): 315–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nijboer, F., J. Clausen, B.Z. Allison, and P. Haselager. 2011. The asilomar survey: Stakeholders’ opinions on ethical issues related to brain-computer interfacing. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007 and s12152-011-9132-6.Google Scholar
  34. Pepperell, R. 2003. The posthuman condition. Bristol/Portland: Intellect.Google Scholar
  35. Suchman, L.A. 2007. Human-machine reconfigurations. Plans and situated actions, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tamburrini, G. 2009. Brain to computer communication: Ethical perspectives on interaction models. Neuroethics 2: 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tipler, F. 1994. The physics of immortality: Modern cosmology, god and the resurrection of the dead. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  38. Tsakiris, M., and P. Haggard. 2005. Experimenting with the acting self. Cognitive Neuropsychology 22: 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zickler, C. 2009. Brain computer interaction applications for people with disabilities: Defining user needs and user requirements. In Assistive technology from adapted equipment to inclusive environments, ed. P.L. Emiliani et al., 185–189. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations