| Title |
Embodiment and Estrangement: Results from a First-in-Human “Intelligent BCI” Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-0001-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
F. Gilbert, M. Cook, T. O’Brien, J. Illes |
| Abstract |
While new generations of implantable brain computer interface (BCI) devices are being developed, evidence in the literature about their impact on the patient experience is lagging. In this article, we address this knowledge gap by analysing data from the first-in-human clinical trial to study patients with implanted BCI advisory devices. We explored perceptions of self-change across six patients who volunteered to be implanted with artificially intelligent BCI devices. We used qualitative methodological tools grounded in phenomenology to conduct in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Results show that, on the one hand, BCIs can positively increase a sense of the self and control; on the other hand, they can induce radical distress, feelings of loss of control, and a rupture of patient identity. We conclude by offering suggestions for the proactive creation of preparedness protocols specific to intelligent-predictive and advisory-BCI technologies essential to prevent potential iatrogenic harms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 50% |
| Italy | 1 | 10% |
| Turkey | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 130 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 18% |
| Researcher | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Unknown | 40 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 11 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 36 | 28% |
| Unknown | 48 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 97. 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 13 October 2022.
All research outputs
#415,151
of 24,614,554 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#13
of 950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,894
of 332,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,614,554 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 332,373 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.