Figure - available from: NanoEthics
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Overview on explicit and implicit ability expectations
Source publication
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are envisioned to enable new abilities of action. This potential can be fruitful in particular when it comes to restoring lost motion or communication abilities or to implementing new possibilities of action. However, BCIs do not come without presuppositions. Applying the concept of ability expectations to BCIs, a w...
Citations
... Disability was a relatively late arrival on the scene of critical interrogations of AI. One of the foremost scholars of emerging technologies and disability has been Wolbring, who has undertaken pioneering work on narratives, imagery, and representations in areas such as robots (Wolbring, 2016;Wolbring & Yumakulov, 2014;Yumakulov et al., 2012), brain-computer interfaces (Kögel & Wolbring, 2020). Lillywhite and Wolbring have contributed two studies of the coverage of disability and AI (Lillywhite & Wolbring, 2020. ...
This chapter looks at a relatively new area of disability and communication: AI. It contends that discourses, language, and representation of disability in relation to AI need to be understood against the backdrop of evolving ideas of disability and technology. It critiques the dominant social imaginaries of AI and disability, which obscure the flaws in the mainstream ways that autonomous intelligent systems such as AI developed. The chapter concludes that AI and its dominant social imaginaries are in the throes of a severe crisis of legitimacy. Accordingly, alternative imaginaries are discussed as ways to reimagine and remake AI, machine learning, intelligent systems, and other technologies as sustainable, just, and conducive to the goals of extending accessibility, inclusion, participation, and rights for people with disabilities.KeywordsDisabilityTechnologyAIImaginariesDigital inclusionAccessibilityInclusive design
... Conductivity is initiated by using the electrode gel on the electrodes. As there are various layers of brain tissues present between the sensor or electrodes and signal, the spatial resolution is poor however, temporal resolution is good [13]. ...
Brain–Computer Interface (BCI) is a technology which captures the neuronal impulses and converts them into instruction for controlling the output devices such as prosthetic devices, computer, robotic system etc. It is a multi-disciplinary and advance research area which is based on the sensors, neuroscience, signal processing etc. Recently it has gained interest of researchers in various fields such as Cognitive neuroscience, Artificial intelligence, medical fields, marketing, educational as well as games. Different types of invasive and non-invasive methodologies are used to capture the brain activity. This article illustrates the human brain, its different parts with their functions, brain signal acquisition methods in details. It also covers the pre-processing and feature extraction methods along with the classifiers. This study will provide the in-depth understanding of the BCI technology which will benefit the researchers to contribute more in this field.
... Vidal (2009), working across history, philosophy, and anthropology, explains how cultures of "brainhood"-the widely shared idea that persons are, in essence, brains-have served as the foundation and not the result of contemporary neuroscience. Implicit ontologies of the "cerebral subject" are thus widespread, observed even in the subjectivities of experimental BCI users (Kögel and Wolbring 2020;Vidal and Ortega 2017). ...
... One discourse analysis of expert BCI publications shows that most users are described as "patients," even though many potential users would reject such labels as perpetuating a deficiency narrative about them (Wolbring and Diep 2016). Another recent study finds that the language used to describe idealized BCI users creates problematic expectations for people with disabilities (Kögel and Wolbring 2020). ...
... Scholars working within the frameworks of responsible innovation or public engagement often point to multi-stakeholder inclusion as an obvious means for improving technology (Rowe and Frewer 2005;Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013), but the extent to which rehab professionals are willing to entertain the restorative promise of BCIs suggests that they may not serve a fully critical or evaluative role in assessing the technology. As long as professional curricula, in addition to social media discourse, rely on unquestioned assumptions about the value of technology and restoring "normal" human flourishing (Kögel and Wolbring 2020), the role of rehabilitation professionals in inclusive innovation is not straightforward. Somewhat more worrisome, as positioning themselves as key actors in understanding user preferences and needs, rehabilitation professionals might even contradict actual users in the name of inclusive or responsible innovation. ...
Over the last two decades, researchers have promised “neuroprosthetics” for use in physical rehabilitation and to treat patients with paralysis. Fulfilling this promise is not merely a technical challenge but is accompanied by consequential practical, ethical, and social implications that warrant sociological investigation and careful deliberation. In response, this paper explores how rehabilitation professionals evaluate the development and application of BCIs. It thereby also asks how the BCIs come to be seen as desirable or not, and implicitly, what types of persons, rights, and responsibilities are assumed in this discourse. To this end, we conducted a web-based survey (N=135) and follow-up interviews (N=15) with Canadian professionals in physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology. We find that rehabilitation professionals, like other publics, express hope and enthusiasm regarding the use of BCIs for assistive purposes. They envision BCI devices as powerful means to reintegrate patients and disabled people into social life but also express practical and ethical reservations about the technology, positioning themselves as uniquely qualified to inform responsible BCI design and implementation. These results further illustrate the nascent “co-production” of neural technologies and social order. More immediately, they also pose a serious challenge for implementing frameworks of responsible innovation; merely prescribing more inclusive technology development may not counteract technocratic processes and widely held ableist views about the need to augment certain bodies using technology.
... These findings stand in contrast to clinical data. Patients raised serious concerns about the creation of self-transcending human-machine hybrids and reported feelings of loss of control and a rupture of their identity [43,44,52]. Furthermore, a study with stroke patients and persons suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) formulated concerns about BCIs creating techno-cerebral subjects [53]. ...
A brain-computer interface (BCI) is a rapidly evolving neurotechnology connecting the human brain with a computer. In its classic form, brain activity is recorded and used to control external devices like protheses or wheelchairs. Thus, BCI users act with the power of their thoughts. While the initial development has focused on medical uses of BCIs, non-medical applications have recently been gaining more attention, for example in automobiles, airplanes, and the entertainment context. However, the attitudes of the general public towards BCIs have hardly been explored. Among the general population in Germany aged 18–65 years, a representative online survey with 20 items was conducted in summer 2018 ( n = 1000) and analysed by descriptive statistics. The survey assessed: affinity for technology; previous knowledge and experience concerning BCIs; the attitude towards ethical, social and legal implications of BCI use and demographic information. Our results indicate that BCIs are a unique and puzzling way of human–machine interaction. The findings reveal a positive view and high level of trust in BCIs on the one hand but on the other hand a wide range of ethical and anthropological concerns. Agency and responsibility were clearly attributed to the BCI user. The participants’ opinions were divided regarding the impact BCIs have on humankind. In summary, a high level of ambivalence regarding BCIs was found. We suggest better information of the public and the promotion of public deliberation about BCIs in order to ensure responsible development and application of this potentially disruptive technology.
... In general, the understanding of human resources can be examined from a macro scale (Dartey-Baah et al., 2020;Jang et al., 2020;Kögel & Wolbring, 2020;Martdianty et al., 2020;Sangwan et al., 2020;A. Valenti & Horner, 2020), where human resources are defined as "The overall potential of labour contained in a country (Daanaa et al., 2020;Ou et al., 2018;Reiner et al., 2019;Subramanien & Joseph, 2019;M. ...
Objective: This paper aims to test and evaluate the Effect of Discipline And Work Environment on Employee Productivity of state-owned public bodies.Design/methodology/approach: This paper uses a quantitative approach using a survey approach. The survey is a study conducted on the employee population of state-owned public agency companies, samples taken from the employee population of state-owned public agency companies to find events related to discipline variables and work environments that can affect employee productivity variables, to analise the influence between discipline variables and the work environment on employee productivity variables using a statistic regression approach. This method is used to explain the influence of discipline variables and work environment on employee productivity variables. This approach is simply to provide a description and test the influence between discipline variables and the work environment on employee productivity variables that can be known how much the influence of discipline variables and work environment on employee productivity variables.Findings: The findings of this study explain that discipline has an influence on the productivity of employees of publicly owned companies, the work environment has an influence on the productivity of employees of publicly owned companies, while together discipline and work environment have an influence on the productivity of employees of publicly owned companies.Practical Implications: The results of the study are recommended for employees to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the performance of state-owned public bodies.Originality: Previous research conducted to test the influence of discipline and work environment on the productivity of employees of manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange, the findings concluded that discipline and work environment have an influence on the work productivity of employees of manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. This research object of research on publicly owned companies owned by the state.
Purpose: To evaluate Mirror Visual Feedback (MVF) as training for brain-computer interface (BCI) users. Around 20%-30% of subjects need more training to operate a BCI system that uses motor imagery. Electroencephalograms (EEGs) were recorded from 18 healthy subjects, using event related desynchronization (ERD) to observe the responses during the movement or movement intention of the hand for the conditions of Control, Imagination, and the MVF with the mirror box. Two groups of subjects were formed, Group 1: control, imagination, and MVF. Group 2: control, MVF, and imagination. There were significant differences in imagination conditions between groups using MVF before or after imagination (Right-hand p = 0.0403. Left-hand p = 0.00939). The illusion of movement through MVF is not possible in all subjects. However, even in those cases an increase in imagination when the subject used the MVF previously was found. The increase in the r2 of imagination in the right and left hands suggests crosslearning. The increase in motor imagery recorded with EEG after MVF suggests that the mirror box made it easier to imagine movements.
To evaluate Mirror Visual Feedback (MVF) as a training tool for brain-computer interface (BCI) users. Because about 20%-30% of subjects need more training to operate a BCI system that uses motor imagery. Electroencephalograms (EEGs) were recorded from 18 healthy subjects, using event-related desynchronization (ERD) to observe the responses during the movement or movement intention of the hand for the conditions of Control, Imagination, and the MVF with the mirror box. Two groups of subjects were formed, Group 1: control, imagination, and MVF. Group 2: control, MVF, and imagination. There were significant differences in imagination conditions between groups using MVF before or after imagination (Right-hand p= 0.0403. Left-hand p=0.00939). The illusion of movement through MVF is not possible in all subjects, but even in those cases, we found an increase in imagination when the subject used the MVF previously. The increase in the r2s of imagination in the right and left hands suggests cross-learning. The increase in motor imagery recorded with EEG after MVF suggests that the mirror box made it easier to imagine movements. Our results provide evidence that the MVF could be used as a training tool to improve motor imagery.
Purpose:
Brain-computer interface (BCI)-controlled wheelchairs have the potential to improve the independence of people with mobility impairments. The low uptake of BCI devices has been linked to a lack of knowledge among researchers of the needs of end-users that should influence BCI development.
Materials and methods:
This study used semi-structured interviews to learn about the perceptions, needs, and expectations of spinal cord injury (SCI) patients with regards to a BCI-controlled wheelchair. Topics discussed in the interview include: paradigms, shared control, safety, robustness, channel selection, hardware, and experimental design. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed. Analysis was carried out using coding based on grounded theory principles.
Results:
The majority of participants had a positive view of BCI-controlled wheelchair technology and were willing to use the technology. Core issues were raised regarding safety, cost and aesthetics. Interview discussions were linked to state-of-the-art BCI technology. The results challenge the current reliance of researchers on the motor-imagery paradigm by suggesting end-users expect highly intuitive paradigms. There also needs to be a stronger focus on obstacle avoidance and safety features in BCI wheelchairs. Finally, the development of control approaches that can be personalized for individual users may be instrumental for widespread adoption of these devices.
Conclusions:
This study, based on interviews with SCI patients, indicates that BCI-controlled wheelchairs are a promising assistive technology that would be well received by end-users. Recommendations for a more person-centered design of BCI controlled wheelchairs are made and clear avenues for future research are identified.
Brain computer interfaces (BCIs) are neuro-products recognized to pose many ethical, legal, and social issues. The health and well-being of people and society—or in other words the ability to have a good life—are a main social issue. BCIs might increasingly impact the ability to have a good life. Various health and well-being indicators can be used to analyze perceptions of potential and already existing impacts of BCIs on the ability to have a good life. Using an online survey, we investigated how science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students perceived the impact of BCIs on the ability to have a good life now and in the future for various social groups. Our study has two main take-home messages. (1) Participants perceived the positive effect of BCIs for disabled people and the elderly to be much greater than for themselves or other groups today and predicting the future. This remained true regardless of whether participants indicated familiarity with BCIs or not. (2) Substantially more participants indicated an only positive impact rather than a purely negative impact of indicators; only one indicator was found where the majority of participants indicated no impact. In general, our results reveal a techno-optimistic perception of the impact of BCIs. Our survey questions could be used as an effective tool in education to engage with students on the impact of BCIs on the ability to have a good life and to bring together groups and individuals engaged with the indicators and people involved with BCIs.KeywordsBrain computer interfaceBrain machine interfaceDisabled peoplePeople with disabilitiesGood lifeStudentsEducation
Brain–Computer Interface (BCI) technology is a promising research area in many domains. Brain activity can be interpreted through both invasive and noninvasive 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 previous work published in 2020, we reviewed the academic discussion of the ethical implications of BCI technology in the previous 5 years by using a limited sample to identify trends and areas of concern or debate among researchers and ethicists. In this chapter, we provide an overview on the academic discussion of BCI ethics and report on the findings for the next phase of this work, which systematically categorizes the entire sample. The aim of this work is to collect and synthesize all the pertinent academic scholarship into the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of BCI technology. We hope this study will provide a foundation for future scholars, ethicists, and policy makers to understand the landscape of the relevant ELSI concepts and pave the way for assessing the need for regulatory action. 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.KeywordsBrain–computer interface (BCI)Brain–machine interface (BMI)Ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI)NeuroethicsScoping review
