↓ Skip to main content

Outstanding questions concerning the regulation of cognitive enhancement devices†

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Law and the Biosciences, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Outstanding questions concerning the regulation of cognitive enhancement devices†
Published in
Journal of Law and the Biosciences, September 2014
DOI 10.1093/jlb/lsu024
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The authors (Maslen et al., 2014) propose to regulate cognitive enhancement devices (CEDs) as medical devices. Extending medical device regulations to CEDs raises some important questions that need to be adequately addressed before it makes sense to pursue this path. A first problem concerns the definition of 'cognitive enhancement' and 'CEDs'. Where does treatment end and enhancement begin? Secondly, since most CEDs such as neurofeedback and transcranial direct current stimulation are currently performed by non-medical health care providers, how will this regulation impact the current practice, and which requirements need to be put in place to regulate their use? Thirdly, distributive justice issues present an obvious ethical limitation. Fourthly, if CEDs are indeed prescribed off-label similar to the off-label prescription of psychopharmacological enhancers by MDs, this will pose problems regarding a lack of sufficient knowledge and expertise due to the highly specialized nature of CEDs. And finally, are we faced with unnecessary worries and unrealistic hopes when it comes to CEDs? In sum, we propose to regulate them regarding product safety and restrict them to competent adult use including professional oversight where indicated.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Canada 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Other 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 5 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 2 14%
Neuroscience 2 14%
Philosophy 1 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 5 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,306,466
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Law and the Biosciences
#304
of 355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,896
of 250,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Law and the Biosciences
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 355 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.3. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 250,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 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.