↓ Skip to main content

The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders’ Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing

Overview of attention for article published in Neuroethics, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders’ Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing
Published in
Neuroethics, August 2011
DOI 10.1007/s12152-011-9132-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Femke Nijboer, Jens Clausen, Brendan Z. Allison, Pim Haselager

Abstract

Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) research and (future) applications raise important ethical issues that need to be addressed to promote societal acceptance and adequate policies. Here we report on a survey we conducted among 145 BCI researchers at the 4(th) International BCI conference, which took place in May-June 2010 in Asilomar, California. We assessed respondents' opinions about a number of topics. First, we investigated preferences for terminology and definitions relating to BCIs. Second, we assessed respondents' expectations on the marketability of different BCI applications (BCIs for healthy people, BCIs for assistive technology, BCIs-controlled neuroprostheses and BCIs as therapy tools). Third, we investigated opinions about ethical issues related to BCI research for the development of assistive technology: informed consent process with locked-in patients, risk-benefit analyses, team responsibility, consequences of BCI on patients' and families' lives, liability and personal identity and interaction with the media. Finally, we asked respondents which issues are urgent in BCI research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 175 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 17%
Student > Master 31 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 4%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 33 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 27 14%
Computer Science 23 12%
Psychology 18 10%
Neuroscience 18 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 6%
Other 50 27%
Unknown 41 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 12 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,740,919
of 24,378,498 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#70
of 428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,851
of 126,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,378,498 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 126,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.