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
. 2024 Feb 16:18:1332451.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1332451. eCollection 2024.

Ethical considerations for integrating multimodal computer perception and neurotechnology

Meghan E Hurley  1 , Anika Sonig  1 , John Herrington  2 , Eric A Storch  3 , Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz  4   5 , Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby  1 , Kristin Kostick-Quenet  1
Affiliations

Ethical considerations for integrating multimodal computer perception and neurotechnology

Meghan E Hurley et al. Front Hum Neurosci. .

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer perception technologies (e.g., digital phenotyping and affective computing) promise to transform clinical approaches to personalized care in psychiatry and beyond by offering more objective measures of emotional states and behavior, enabling precision treatment, diagnosis, and symptom monitoring. At the same time, passive and continuous nature by which they often collect data from patients in non-clinical settings raises ethical issues related to privacy and self-determination. Little is known about how such concerns may be exacerbated by the integration of neural data, as parallel advances in computer perception, AI, and neurotechnology enable new insights into subjective states. Here, we present findings from a multi-site NCATS-funded study of ethical considerations for translating computer perception into clinical care and contextualize them within the neuroethics and neurorights literatures.

Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with patients (n = 20), caregivers (n = 20), clinicians (n = 12), developers (n = 12), and clinician developers (n = 2) regarding their perspective toward using PC in clinical care. Transcripts were analyzed in MAXQDA using Thematic Content Analysis.

Results: Stakeholder groups voiced concerns related to (1) perceived invasiveness of passive and continuous data collection in private settings; (2) data protection and security and the potential for negative downstream/future impacts on patients of unintended disclosure; and (3) ethical issues related to patients' limited versus hyper awareness of passive and continuous data collection and monitoring. Clinicians and developers highlighted that these concerns may be exacerbated by the integration of neural data with other computer perception data.

Discussion: Our findings suggest that the integration of neurotechnologies with existing computer perception technologies raises novel concerns around dignity-related and other harms (e.g., stigma, discrimination) that stem from data security threats and the growing potential for reidentification of sensitive data. Further, our findings suggest that patients' awareness and preoccupation with feeling monitored via computer sensors ranges from hypo- to hyper-awareness, with either extreme accompanied by ethical concerns (consent vs. anxiety and preoccupation). These results highlight the need for systematic research into how best to implement these technologies into clinical care in ways that reduce disruption, maximize patient benefits, and mitigate long-term risks associated with the passive collection of sensitive emotional, behavioral and neural data.

Keywords: affective computing; computer perception; digital phenotyping; neural data; neuroethics; neurorights; privacy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

ES reports receiving research funding to his institution from the Ream Foundation, International OCD Foundation, and NIH. He was formerly a consultant for Brainsway and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals in the past 12°months. He owns stock less than $5000 in NView. He receives book royalties from Elsevier, Wiley, Oxford, American Psychological Association, Guildford, Springer, Routledge, and Jessica Kingsley. The remaining 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. The reviewer JW declared a past co-authorship with the author GL-M to the handling editor.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Abelson J., Curtis G. C., Sagher O., Albucher R. C., Taylor S. F., Martis B., et al. (2005). Deep brain stimulation for refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biol. Psychiatry 57 510–516. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.11.042 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aharoni E., Vincent G. M., Harenski C. L., Calhoun V. D., Sinnott-Armstrong W., Gazzaniga M. S., et al. (2013). Neuroprediction of future rearrest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 6223–6228. 10.1073/pnas.1219302110 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Akbari H., Arora H., Cao L., Mesgarani N. (2018). “Lip2Audspec: Speech reconstruction from silent lip movements video,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), (Calgary, AB: IEEE; ), 2516–2520. 10.1109/ICASSP.2018.8461856 - DOI
    1. Barnett J. I, Torous P., Staples L., Sandoval M., Keshavan, Onnela J.-P. (2018). Relapse prediction in schizophrenia through digital phenotyping: A pilot study. Neuropsychopharmacology 43 1660–1666. 10.1038/s41386-018-0030-z - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blumenthal-Barby J. S. (2022). Mental integrity, BRAIN initiative – brain behavior quantification and synchronization (BBQS) | interagency modeling and analysis group. Zürich: University of Zurich.

LinkOut - more resources