Public attitudes towards neurotechnology: Findings from two experiments concerning Brain Stimulation Devices (BSDs) and Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs)

Exploring disparities in self-reported knowledge about neurotechnology

With advances in neurotechnology and its use for medical treatment and beyond, it is important to understand the public's awareness of such technologies and potential disparities in self-reported knowledge, because knowledge is known to influence the acceptance and use of new technologies. This study utilizes a large sample (N = 10,339) to depict the existence and extent of self-reported knowledge of these neurotechnologies and to examine knowledge disparities between respondents. Results show that most respondents self-reported at least some knowledge of ultrasound and electroencephalography (EEG), but limited knowledge of BCIs. Prior use, being a healthcare professional, and health literacy increased the odds of self-reporting some knowledge. Also gender and age disparities exist. These findings may help identify uninformed groups in society and enhance information campaigns.

Community perspectives regarding brain-computer interfaces: A cross-sectional study of community-dwelling adults in the UK

BACKGROUND

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) represent a ground-breaking advancement in neuroscience, facilitating direct communication between the brain and external devices. This technology has the potential to significantly improve the lives of individuals with neurological disorders by providing innovative solutions for rehabilitation, communication and personal autonomy. However, despite the rapid progress in BCI technology and social media discussions around Neuralink, public perceptions and ethical considerations concerning BCIs-particularly within community settings in the UK-have not been thoroughly investigated.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to investigate public knowledge, attitudes and perceptions regarding BCIs including ethical considerations. The study also explored whether demographic factors were related to beliefs about BCIs increasing inequalities, support for strict regulations, and perceptions of appropriate fields for BCI design, testing and utilization in healthcare.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted between 1 December 2023 and 8 March 2024. The survey included 29 structured questions covering demographics, awareness of BCIs, ethical considerations and willingness to use BCIs for various applications. The survey was distributed via the Imperial College Qualtrics platform. Participants were recruited primarily through Prolific Academic's panel and personal networks. Data analysis involved summarizing responses using frequencies and percentages, with chi-squared tests to compare groups. All data were securely stored and pseudo-anonymized to ensure confidentiality.

RESULTS

Of the 950 invited respondents, 846 participated and 806 completed the survey. The demographic profile was diverse, with most respondents aged 36-45 years (26%) balanced in gender (52% female), and predominantly identifying as White (86%). Most respondents (98%) had never used BCIs, and 65% were unaware of them prior to the survey. Preferences for BCI types varied by condition. Ethical concerns were prevalent, particularly regarding implantation risks (98%) and costs (92%). Significant associations were observed between demographic variables and perceptions of BCIs regarding inequalities, regulation and their application in healthcare. Conclusion: Despite strong interest in BCIs, particularly for medical applications, ethical concerns, safety and privacy issues remain significant highlighting the need for clear regulatory frameworks and ethical guidelines, as well as educational initiatives to improve public understanding and trust. Promoting public discourse and involving stakeholders including potential users, ethicists and technologists in the design process through co-design principles can help align technological development with public concerns whilst also helping developers to proactively address ethical dilemmas.

Factors influencing the social acceptance of brain-computer interface technology among Chinese general public: an exploratory study

This study investigates the impact of social factors on public acceptance of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology within China's general population. As BCI emerges as a pivotal advancement in artificial intelligence and a cornerstone of Industry 5.0, understanding its societal reception is crucial. Utilizing data from the Psychological and Behavioral Study of Chinese Residents (N = 1,923), this research examines the roles of learning ability, age, health, social support, and socioeconomic status in BCI acceptance, alongside considerations of gender and the level of monthly household income. Multiple regression analysis via STATA-MP18 reveals that while health, socioeconomic status, social support, and learning ability significantly positively correlate with acceptance, and age presents an inverse relationship, gender and household income do not demonstrate a significant effect. Notably, the prominence of learning ability and social support as principal factors suggests targeted avenues for increasing BCI technology adoption. These findings refine the current understanding of technology acceptance and offer actionable insights for BCI policy and practical applications.

Understanding societal challenges: a NeurotechEU perspective

Futuristic universities like The NeurotechEU and the technological innovations they provide will shape and serve society, but will also require support from society. Positive attitudes about neuro-technologies will increase their reach within society and may also impact policy-making, including funding decisions. However, the acceptability rates, especially of invasive neuro-technologies, are quite low and the majority of people are more worried than enthusiastic about them. The question therefore arises as to what neuro-technological advances should entail. In a rare effort to reach out to the public, we propose to conduct a trans-national survey with the goal to better understand the challenges of our NeurotechEU nations. We aim to compare and contrast our nations specifically with respect to their perspectives on neuro-technological advances, i.e., their needs for, interests in, access to, knowledge of and trust in neuro-technologies, and whether these should be regulated. To this end, we have developed the first version of a new tool-the Understanding Societal Challenges Questionnaire (USCQ)-which assesses all six of these dimensions (needs, interest, access, knowledge, trust, and policy-making) and is designed for administration across EU/AC countries. In addition to trans-national comparisons, we will also examine the links of our nations' perspectives on neuro-technological advances to demographic and personality variables, for example, education and socio-economic status, size of the residential area, the Big Five personality traits, religiosity, political standings, and more. We expect that this research will provide a deeper understanding of the challenges that our nations are facing as well as the similarities and differences between them, and will also help uncover the variables that predict positive and negative attitudes toward neuro-technological advances. By integrating this knowledge into the scientific process, The NeurotechEU may be able to develop neuro-technologies that people really care about, are ethical and regulated, and actually understood by the user.

"In the spectrum of people who are healthy": Views of individuals at risk of dementia on using neurotechnology for cognitive enhancement

Neurotechnological cognitive enhancement has become an area of intense scientific, policy, and ethical interest. However, while work has increasingly focused on ethical views of the general public, less studied are those with personal connections to cognitive impairment. Using a mixed-methods design, we surveyed attitudes regarding implantable neurotechnological cognitive enhancement in individuals who self-identified as having increased likelihood of developing dementia (n=25; 'Our Study'), compared to a nationally representative sample of Americans (n=4726; 'Pew Study'). Participants in Our Study were additionally shown four videos showcasing hypothetical neurotechnological devices designed to enhance different cognitive abilities and were interviewed for more in-depth responses. Both groups expressed comparable degrees of worry and acknowledgement of potential ethical ramifications (all ps>0.05). Compared to the Pew Study, participants in Our Study expressed slightly higher desire (p<0.01), as well as higher acknowledgment for potential impacts on productivity (p<0.05). Ultimately, participants in Our Study were more likely to deem the device morally acceptable (56%; compared to Pew Study, 25.2%; p=0.0001). Interviews conducted in Our Study allowed participants to supply additional nuance and reasoning to survey responses, such as giving examples for increased productivity, perceived downsides of memory enhancement, or concerns regarding potentially resulting inequality. This study builds upon and adds to the growing focus on potential ethical issues surrounding neurotechnological cognitive enhancement by centering stakeholder perspectives, highlighting the need for inclusive research and consideration of diverse perspectives and lived experiences to ensure inclusive dialogue that best informs ethical and policy discussions in this rapidly advancing field.

Public Perceptions of Neurotechnologies Used to Target Mood, Memory, and Motor Symptoms

Background

Advances in the development of neurotechnologies have the potential to revolutionize treatment of brain-based conditions. However, a critical concern revolves around the willingness of the public to embrace these technologies, especially considering the tumultuous histories of certain neurosurgical interventions. Therefore, examining public attitudes is paramount to uncovering potential barriers to adoption ensuring ethically sound innovation.

Methods

In the present study, we investigate public attitudes towards the use of four neurotechnologies (within-subjects conditions): deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), pills, and MRI-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) as potential treatments to a person experiencing either mood, memory, or motor symptoms (between-subjects conditions). US-based participants (N=1052; stratified to be nationally representative based on sex, race, age) were asked about their perceptions of risk, benefit, invasiveness, acceptability, perceived change to the person, and personal interest in using these neurotechnologies for symptom alleviation.

Results

Descriptive results indicate variability between technologies that the U.S. public is willing to consider if experiencing severe mood, memory, or motor symptoms. The main effect of neurotechnology revealed DBS was viewed as the most invasive and risky treatment and was perceived to lead to the greatest change to who someone is as a person. DBS was also viewed as least likely to be personally used and least acceptable for use by others. When examining the main effects of symptomatology, we found that all forms of neuromodulation were perceived as significantly more beneficial, acceptable, and likely to be used by participants for motor symptoms, followed by memory symptoms, and lastly mood symptoms. Neuromodulation (averaging across neurotechnologies) was perceived as significantly riskier, more invasive, and leading to a greater change to person for mood versus motor symptoms; however, memory and motor symptoms were perceived similarly with respect to risk, invasiveness, and change to person.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the public views neuromodulatory approaches that require surgery (i.e., DBS and MRgFUS) as riskier, more invasive, and less acceptable than those that do not. Further, findings suggest individuals may be more reluctant to alter or treat psychological symptoms with neuromodulation compared to physical symptoms.

Adapting Ourselves, Instead of the Environment: An Inquiry into Human Enhancement for Function and Beyond

Technology enables humans not only to adapt their environment to their needs but also to modify themselves. Means of Human Enhancement - embodied technologies to improve the human body's capabilities or to create a new one - are the designated means of adapting ourselves instead of the environment. The debate about these technologies is typically fought on ethical soil. However, alarmist, utopian, and science fiction scenarios distract from the fact that Human Enhancement is a historical and pervasive phenomenon incorporated into many everyday practices. In the vein of disentangling conceptual difficulties, we claim that means of Human Enhancement are either physiologically or psychologically embodied, rendering the merging with the human user their most defining aspect. To fulfill its purpose, an enhancement must pass the test-in-the-world, i.e., assisting with effective engagement with a dynamic world. Even if failing in this regard: Human Enhancement is the fundamental and semi-targeted process of changing the users relationship with the world through the physical or psychological embodiment of a hitherto external object and/or change of one's body. This can potentially change the notion of being human. Drawing on a rich body of theoretical and empirical literature, we aim to provide a nuanced analysis of the transformative nature of this phenomenon in close proximity to human practice. Stakeholders are invited to apply the theory presented here to interrogate their perspective on technology in general and Human Enhancement in particular.

Brain-computer interfaces, disability, and the stigma of refusal: A factorial vignette study

As brain-computer interfaces are promoted as assistive devices, some researchers worry that this promise to "restore" individuals worsens stigma toward disabled people and fosters unrealistic expectations. In three web-based survey experiments with vignettes, we tested how refusing a brain-computer interface in the context of disability affects cognitive (blame), emotional (anger), and behavioral (coercion) stigmatizing attitudes (Experiment 1, N = 222) and whether the effect of a refusal is affected by the level of brain-computer interface functioning (Experiment 2, N = 620) or the risk of malfunctioning (Experiment 3, N = 620). We found that refusing a brain-computer interface increased blame and anger, while brain-computer interface functioning did change the effect of a refusal. Higher risks of device malfunctioning partially reduced stigmatizing attitudes and moderated the effect of refusal. This suggests that information about disabled people who refuse a technology can increase stigma toward them. This finding has serious implications for brain-computer interface regulation, media coverage, and the prevention of ableism.