Improving brain computer interface research through user involvement - The transformative potential of integrating civil society organisations in research projects

Pioneering neurohackers: between egocentric human enhancement and altruistic sacrifice

The growing field of neurotechnology (NT) is becoming more and more accessible in terms of reduced costs, increasing availability and reliability of materials, and ways to implant devices. As in other engineering fields such as bio-or information technology, there is a growing community of pioneering hackers who (self-)experiment with NT and develop novel applications. While most debates about NT, its goals and ethical ramifications are usually conducted by professionals in the field (neuroscientists, -engineers, -ethicists), little is known within these institutional frameworks about the motivations, goals and visions of neurohackers and how they view ethical ramifications of NT therapeutics vs. human enhancement. In this study we draw on qualitative interviews with 13 of these neurohacking pioneers, who are interacting with NT from a grassroots perspective (i.e., a bottom-up and community/subculture-oriented approach), and shed light on: how they understand themselves in the context of human enhancement; what the role of invasive NTs is when it comes to identifying as a cyborg; if their practices show a clear distinction between therapy and enhancement; whether human enhancement is always about performance, optimization and functionality; and to which extent neurohackers contribute to "mainstreaming" NT.

Stakeholder engagement in European brain research: Experiences of the Lifebrain consortium

INTRODUCTION

Stakeholder engagement remains scarce in basic brain research. However, it can greatly improve the relevance of investigations and accelerate the translation of study findings to policy. The Lifebrain consortium investigated risk and protective factors influencing brain health using cognition, lifestyle and imaging data from European cohorts. Stakeholder activities of Lifebrain-organized in a separate work package-included organizing stakeholder events, investigating public perceptions of brain health and dissemination. Here, we describe the experiences of researchers and stakeholders regarding stakeholder engagement in the Lifebrain project.

METHODS

Stakeholder engagement in Lifebrain was evaluated through surveys among researchers and stakeholders and stakeholders' feedback at stakeholder events through evaluation forms. Survey data were analysed using a simple content analysis approach, and results from evaluation forms were summarized after reviewing the frequency of responses.

RESULTS

Consortium researchers and stakeholders experienced the engagement activities as meaningful and relevant. Researchers highlighted that it made the research and research processes more visible and contributed to new networks, optimized data collection on brain health perceptions and the production of papers and provided insights into stakeholder views. Stakeholders found research activities conducted in the stakeholder engagement work package to be within their field of interest and research results relevant to their work. Researchers identified barriers to stakeholder engagement, including lack of time, difficulties in identifying relevant stakeholders, and challenges in communicating complex scientific issues in lay language and maintaining relationships with stakeholders over time. Stakeholders identified barriers such as lack of budget, limited resources in their organization, time constraints and insufficient communication between researchers and stakeholders.

CONCLUSION

Stakeholder engagement in basic brain research can greatly benefit researchers and stakeholders alike. Its success is conditional on dedicated human and financial resources, clear communication, transparent mutual expectations and clear roles and responsibilities.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient organizations, research networks, policymakers and members of the general public were involved in engagement and research activities throughout the project duration.

Hearing the needs of clinical users

In the past 10 years, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for controlling assistive devices have seen tremendous progress with respect to reliability and learnability, and numerous exemplary applications were demonstrated to be controllable by a BCI. Yet, BCI-controlled applications are hardly used for patients with neurologic or neurodegenerative disease. Such patient groups are considered potential end-users of BCI, specifically for replacing or improving lost function. We argue that BCI research and development still faces a translational gap, i.e., the knowledge of how to bring BCIs from the laboratory to the field is insufficient. BCI-controlled applications lack usability and accessibility; both constitute two sides of one coin, which is the key to use in daily life and to prevent nonuse. To increase usability, we suggest rigorously adopting the user-centered design in applied BCI research and development. To provide accessibility, assistive technology (AT) experts, providers, and other stakeholders have to be included in the user-centered process. BCI experts have to ensure the transfer of knowledge to AT professionals, and listen to the needs of primary, secondary, and tertiary end-users of BCI technology. Addressing both, usability and accessibility, in applied BCI research and development will bridge the translational gap and ensure that the needs of clinical end-users are heard, understood, addressed, and fulfilled.