Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2020
  • Online publication date: May 2020

Chapter 22 - Brain-Machine Interface Technology in Neurosurgery

from Part III - Future Developments

Summary

Diseases of the nervous system are an enormous burden to patients and society. Brain computer interfaces (BCIs) aim to improve or even eliminate the handicaps associated with these diseases by linking the brain and a computer via scalp, subdural, or intracortical electrodes. The transfer of information to and from the brain can be used to restore function. This chapter starts with a brief introduction to the recent history of BCIs, followed by the main topic of this chapter: the ethical challenges associated with BCIs. The ethical issues to be discussed include agency and identity, privacy, security, and informed consent. The management of patient and family expectations and balancing the risks and benefits of BCIs are also explored. Establishing the efficacy of BCIs and the challenges related to the principles of justice are also discussed. BCIs could potentially be used to enhance normal function, and this raises many ethical questions. In the last part of this chapter, future directions of BCIs including potential technical advances such as connectivity of the brain to ‘the cloud’ and ‘brain nets’ will be outlined. The challenges outlined in this chapter need to be addressed, both by those responsible for the technical development of BCIs, but also by neurosurgeons, policy makers, and law makers.

1.Rosenfeld, J. V., Wong, Y. T. Neurobionics and the brain-computer interface: current applications and future horizons. Med. J. Aust. 2017; 206: 3638.
2.Martin, S., Iturrate, I., Millan, J. D. R., et al. Decoding inner speech using electrocorticography: progress and challenges toward a speech prosthesis. Front Neurosci. 2018; 12: 422.
3.Burwell, S. M., Sample, M., Racine, E. Ethical aspects of brain computer interfaces: a scoping review. BMC Med. Ethics 2017; 18: 60.
4.Klein, E. Informed consent in implantable BCI research: identifying risks and exploring meaning. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2016; 22: 12991317.
5.Clausen, J., Fetz, E., Donoghue, J., et al. Help, hope, and hype: ethical dimensions of neuroprosthetics. Science 2017; 356: 13389.
6.Yuste, R., Goering, S., Arcas, B. A. Y., et al. Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature 2017; 551: 15963.
7.Vidal, J. Real-time detection of brain events in EEG. IEEE Proceedings 1977; 65 : 63344.
8.Lewis, P. M., Ayton, L. N., Guymer, R. H., et al. Advances in implantable bionic devices for blindness: a review. ANZ J. Surg. 2016; 86: 6549.
9.Hochberg, L. R., Serruya, M. D., Friehs, G. M., et al. Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature 2006; 442: 16471.
10.Deadwyler, S. A., Berger, T. W., Sweatt, A. J., et al. Donor/recipient enhancement of memory in rat hippocampus. Front Syst. Neurosci. 2013; 7: 120.
11.Deadwyler, S. A., Hampson, R. E., Song, D., et al. A cognitive prosthesis for memory facilitation by closed-loop functional ensemble stimulation of hippocampal neurons in primate brain. Exp. Neurol. 2017; 287: 45260.
12.Oxley, T. J., Opie, N. L., John, S. E., et al. Minimally invasive endovascular stent-electrode array for high-fidelity, chronic recordings of cortical neural activity. Nature Biotech. 2016; 34: 3207.
13.Roskies, A. L., Agency and intervention. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2015 370: 20140215.
14.Gilbert, F., Cook, M., OBrien, T., et al. Embodiment and estrangement: results from a first-in-human intelligent BCI trial. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2019; 25(1): 8396.
15.Lane, F. J., Huyck, M., Troyk, P., et al. Responses of potential users to the intracortical visual prosthesis: final themes from the analysis of focus group data. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2012; 7: 30413.
16.Thompson, M. C. Critiquing the concept of BCI illiteracy. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2019; 25(4): 121733.
17.Thomson, E. E., Carra, R., Nicolelis, M. A. Perceiving invisible light through a somatosensory cortical prosthesis. Nat. Commun. 2013; 4: 1482.
18.Pais-Vieira, M., Chiuffa, G., Lebedev, M., et al. Building an organic computing device with multiple interconnected brains. Sci. Rep. 2015; 5: 11869.
19.Ramakrishnan, A., Ifft, P. J., Pais-Vieira, M., et al. Computing arm movements with a monkey brainet. Sci. Rep. 2015; 5: 10767.
20.Grau, C., Ginhoux, R., Riera, A., et al. Conscious brain-to-brain communication in humans using non-invasive technologies. PLoS One 2014; 9: e105225.
21.Yoo, S. S., Kim, H., Filandrianos, E., et al. Non-invasive brain-to-brain interface (BBI): establishing functional links between two brains. PLoS One 2103; 8: e60410.