The idea that deep brain stimulation (DBS) induces changes to personality, identity, agency, authenticity, autonomy and self (PIAAAS) is so deeply entrenched within neuroethics discourses that it has become an unchallenged narrative. In this article, we critically assess evidence about putative effects of DBS on PIAAAS. We conducted a literature review of more than 1535 articles to investigate the prevalence of scientific evidence regarding these potential DBS-induced changes. While we observed an increase in the number of publications in theoretical neuroethics (...) that mention putative DBS-induced changes to patients’ postoperative PIAAAS, we found a critical lack of primary empirical studies corroborating these claims. Our findings strongly suggest that the theoretical neuroethics debate on putative effects of DBS relies on very limited empirical evidence and is, instead, reliant on unsubstantiated speculative assumptions probablyin lieuof robust evidence. As such, this may reflect the likelihood of a speculative neuroethics bubble that may need to be deflated. Nevertheless, despite the low number of first-hand primary studies and large number of marginal and single case reports, potential postoperative DBS changes experienced by patients remain a critical ethical concern. We recommend further empirical research in order to enhance theoretical neuroethics work in the area. In particular, we call for the development of better instruments capable of capturing potential postoperative variations of PIAAAS. (shrink)

The article Deflating the "DBS causes personality changes" bubble, written by Frederic Gilbert, J. N. M. Viaña and C. Ineichen, was originally published electronically on the publisher’s internet portal on 19 June 2018 without open access.

Owing to an oversight, we noted that the acknowledgement section was missing from the original published version of this paper.

Disabled people are impacted by ArtiBicial Intelligence including Machine Learning linked neuro and brain based scientiBic and technological advancements. How disabled people are portrayed and what role is linked to disabled people in AI/Neuro discourses impacts how AI/Neuro are advanced in relation to disabled people. A content analysis was performed on 786 academic abstracts obtained from Scopus and the 70 databases of EBSCO-HOST, 208 Canadian newspaper articles and 286 tweets. Within the academic literature, Canadian newspapers and tweets covered, the main (...) portrayal of disabled people was a medical or deBiciency one, and the main roles of disabled people evident were the ones of being a medical/ therapeutic user and medical focused research participant of AI/Neuro advancements. The following roles were not present: “victim” of AI/Neuro advancements; “educator”, advocate”, or “knowledge producers” on the social and other implications of AI/Neuro, and “stakeholder”. No role was linked to AI/Neuro governance, ethics and policy discourses. The limited scope of roles of disabled people in the AI/Neuro literature covered and the medically slated portrayal of disabled people revealed decreases the utility of how AI/Neuro advancements are discussed, especially the AI/Neuro ethics and governance discourses. (shrink)