Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 21:16:841035.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.841035. eCollection 2022.

Brain Computer Interfaces and Communication Disabilities: Ethical, Legal, and Social Aspects of Decoding Speech From the Brain

Jennifer A Chandler  1 , Kiah I Van der Loos  2 , Susan Boehnke  3 , Jonas S Beaudry  4 , Daniel Z Buchman  5 , Judy Illes  6
Affiliations

Brain Computer Interfaces and Communication Disabilities: Ethical, Legal, and Social Aspects of Decoding Speech From the Brain

Jennifer A Chandler et al. Front Hum Neurosci. .

Abstract

A brain-computer interface technology that can decode the neural signals associated with attempted but unarticulated speech could offer a future efficient means of communication for people with severe motor impairments. Recent demonstrations have validated this approach. Here we assume that it will be possible in future to decode imagined (i.e., attempted but unarticulated) speech in people with severe motor impairments, and we consider the characteristics that could maximize the social utility of a BCI for communication. As a social interaction, communication involves the needs and goals of both speaker and listener, particularly in contexts that have significant potential consequences. We explore three high-consequence legal situations in which neurally-decoded speech could have implications: Testimony, where decoded speech is used as evidence; Consent and Capacity, where it may be used as a means of agency and participation such as consent to medical treatment; and Harm, where such communications may be networked or may cause harm to others. We then illustrate how design choices might impact the social and legal acceptability of these technologies.

Keywords: AAC; BCI; augmentative and alternative communication; brain computer interface; communication; law; neuroethics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Akbari H., Khalighinejad B., Herrero J. L., Mehta A. D., Mesgarani N. (2019). Towards reconstructing intelligible speech from the human auditory cortex. Sci. Rep. 9:874. 10.1038/s41598-018-37359-z - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA] (2018). Facilitated Communication Position Statement. Maryland, US: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
    1. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 42 U.S.C. ch. 126 §12101 et seq.
    1. Angrick M., Ottenhoff M. C., Diener L., Ivucic D., Ivucic G., Goulis S., et al. (2020). Real-time synthesis of imagined speech processes from minimally invasive recordings of neural activity. Commun. Biol. 4:1055. 10.1038/s42003-021-02578-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anumanchipalli G. K., Chartier J., Chang E. F. (2019). Speech synthesis from neural decoding of spoken sentences. Nature 568 493–498. 10.1038/s41586-019-1119-1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed