↓ Skip to main content

Ethics of the Electrified Mind: Defining Issues and Perspectives on the Principled Use of Brain Stimulation in Medical Research and Clinical Care

Overview of attention for article published in Brain Topography, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
Title
Ethics of the Electrified Mind: Defining Issues and Perspectives on the Principled Use of Brain Stimulation in Medical Research and Clinical Care
Published in
Brain Topography, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10548-013-0296-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Y. Cabrera, Emily L. Evans, Roy H. Hamilton

Abstract

In recent years, non-pharmacologic approaches to modifying human neural activity have gained increasing attention. One of these approaches is brain stimulation, which involves either the direct application of electrical current to structures in the nervous system or the indirect application of current by means of electromagnetic induction. Interventions that manipulate the brain have generally been regarded as having both the potential to alleviate devastating brain-related conditions and the capacity to create unforeseen and unwanted consequences. Hence, although brain stimulation techniques offer considerable benefits to society, they also raise a number of ethical concerns. In this paper we will address various dilemmas related to brain stimulation in the context of clinical practice and biomedical research. We will survey current work involving deep brain stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation. We will reflect upon relevant similarities and differences between them, and consider some potentially problematic issues that may arise within the framework of established principles of medical ethics: nonmaleficence and beneficence, autonomy, and justice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Italy 2 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 97 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 19%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 18%
Psychology 19 18%
Neuroscience 16 15%
Engineering 7 7%
Philosophy 3 3%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 28 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 December 2023.
All research outputs
#5,579,300
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from Brain Topography
#99
of 483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,846
of 197,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Topography
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 483 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 197,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.