↓ Skip to main content

Identifying Criteria for the Evaluation of the Implications of Brain Reading for Mental Privacy

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Identifying Criteria for the Evaluation of the Implications of Brain Reading for Mental Privacy
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-0003-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giulio Mecacci, Pim Haselager

Abstract

Contemporary brain reading technologies promise to provide the possibility to decode and interpret mental states and processes. Brain reading could have numerous societally relevant implications. In particular, the private character of mind might be affected, generating ethical and legal concerns. This paper aims at equipping ethicists and policy makers with conceptual tools to support an evaluation of the potential applicability and the implications of current and near future brain reading technology. We start with clarifying the concepts of mind reading and brain reading, and the different kinds of mental states that could in principle be read. Subsequently, we devise an evaluative framework that is composed of five criteria-accuracy, reliability, informativity, concealability and enforceability-aimed at enabling a clearer estimation of the degree to which brain reading might be realistically deployed in contexts where mental privacy could be at stake. While accuracy and reliability capture how well a certain method can access mental content, informativity indicates the relevance the obtainable data have for practical purposes. Concealability and enforceability are particularly important for the evaluation of concerns about potential violations of mental privacy and civil rights. The former concerns the degree with which a brain reading method can be concealed from an individual's perception or awareness. The latter regards the extent to which a method can be used against somebody's will. With the help of these criteria, stakeholders can orient themselves in the rapidly developing field of brain reading.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 8 16%
Psychology 6 12%
Philosophy 5 10%
Computer Science 5 10%
Engineering 4 8%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 01 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,193,193
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#172
of 975 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,219
of 446,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 975 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 446,746 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.