Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

"In the spectrum of people who are healthy": Views of individuals at risk of dementia on using neurotechnology for cognitive enhancement

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Neurotechnological cognitive enhancement has become an area of intense scientific, policy, and ethical interest. However, while work has increasingly focused on ethical views of the general public, less studied are those with personal connections to cognitive impairment. Using a mixed-methods design, we surveyed attitudes regarding implantable neurotechnological cognitive enhancement in individuals who self-identified as having increased likelihood of developing dementia (n = 25; ‘Our Study’), compared to a nationally representative sample of Americans (n = 4726; ‘Pew Study’). Participants in Our Study were additionally shown four videos showcasing hypothetical neurotechnological devices designed to enhance different cognitive abilities and were interviewed for more in-depth responses. Both groups expressed comparable degrees of worry and acknowledgement of potential ethical ramifications (all ps > 0.05). Compared to the Pew Study, participants in Our Study expressed slightly higher desire (p < 0.01), as well as higher acknowledgment for potential impacts on productivity (p < 0.05). Ultimately, participants in Our Study were more likely to deem the device morally acceptable (56%; compared to Pew Study, 25.2%; p = 0.0001). Interviews conducted in Our Study allowed participants to supply additional nuance and reasoning to survey responses, such as giving examples for increased productivity, perceived downsides of memory enhancement, or concerns regarding potentially resulting inequality. This study builds upon and adds to the growing focus on potential ethical issues surrounding neurotechnological cognitive enhancement by centering stakeholder perspectives, highlighting the need for inclusive research and consideration of diverse perspectives and lived experiences to ensure inclusive dialogue that best informs ethical and policy discussions in this rapidly advancing field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data backing the conclusions of this study can be obtained upon request from the corresponding author, EK. Due to privacy restrictions, such as the inclusion of sensitive information that could compromise the privacy of research participants, these data are not publicly accessible.

Notes

  1. E.g., respondents were asked questions like: “How do you think about worker productivity in the context of cognitive enhancement devices?” rather than “Why did you choose ‘Yes, likely’ to question 8?”.

  2. We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this point to our attention.

References 

  1. Cinel, Caterina, Davide Valeriani, and Riccardo Poli. 2019. Neurotechnologies for Human Cognitive Augmentation: Current State of the Art and Future Prospects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00013.

  2. Jotterand, Fabrice, and Veljko Dubljevic. 2016. Cognitive enhancement: Ethical and policy implications in international perspectives. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396818.001.0001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hildt, Elisabeth. 2013. Cognitive enhancement–A critical look at the recent debate. Cognitive enhancement: An interdisciplinary perspective. Springer: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6253-4_1.

  4. Clark, Vincent P., and Raja Parasuraman. 2014. Neuroenhancement: Enhancing brain and mind in health and in disease. NeuroImage 85. Neuro-Enhancement: 889–894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.071.

  5. Vidu, Ruxandra, Masoud Rahman, Morteza Mahmoudi, Marius Enachescu, Teodor D. Poteca, and Ioan Opris. 2014. Nanostructures: a platform for brain repair and augmentation. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00091.

  6. Conrad, Erin C., Stacey Humphries, and Anjan Chatterjee. 2019. Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement: The Role of Metaphor and Context. AJOB Neuroscience 10: 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2019.1595771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Maslen, Hannah, Thomas Douglas, Roi Cohen Kadosh, Neil Levy, and Julian Savulescu. 2014. The regulation of cognitive enhancement devices: Extending the medical model. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 1: 68–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lst003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cabrera, Laura Y., Emily L. Evans, and Roy H. Hamilton. 2014. Ethics of the electrified mind: defining issues and perspectives on the principled use of brain stimulation in medical research and clinical care. Brain topography 27. Springer: 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-013-0296-8.

  9. Sullivan, Christi RP, Sarah Olsen, and Alik S. Widge. 2021. Deep brain stimulation for psychiatric disorders: From focal brain targets to cognitive networks. Neuroimage 225. Elsevier: 117515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117515.

  10. Ibrahim, Christine, Dafna S. Rubin-Kahana, Abhiram Pushparaj, Martin Musiol, Daniel M. Blumberger, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Abraham Zangen, and Bernard Le Foll. 2019. The insula: a brain stimulation target for the treatment of addiction. Frontiers in pharmacology 10. Frontiers Media SA: 720. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.00720.

  11. Lozano, Andres M., Lisa Fosdick, M. Mallar Chakravarty, Jeannie-Marie Leoutsakos, Cynthia Munro, Esther Oh, Kristen E. Drake, Christopher H. Lyman, Paul B. Rosenberg, and William S. Anderson. 2016. A phase II study of fornix deep brain stimulation in mild Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 54. IOS Press: 777–787. https://doi.org/10.5327/1516-3180.168.

  12. Song, Dong, Brian S. Robinson, Robert E. Hampson, Vasilis Z. Marmarelis, Sam A. Deadwyler, and Theodore W. Berger. 2018. Sparse Large-Scale Nonlinear Dynamical Modeling of Human Hippocampus for Memory Prostheses. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 26 (2): 272–280. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2604423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hampson, Robert E., Dong Song, Brian S. Robinson, Dustin Fetterhoff, Alexander S. Dakos, Brent M. Roeder, Xiwei She, Robert T. Wicks, Mark R. Witcher, Daniel E. Couture, Adrian W. Laxton, Heidi Munger-Clary, Gautam Popli, Myriam J. Sollman, Christopher T. Whitlow, Vasilis Z. Marmarelis, Theodore W. Berger, and Sam A. Deadwyler. 2018. Developing a hippocampal neural prosthetic to facilitate human memory encoding and recall. J Neural Eng 15 (3): 036014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aaaed7.

  14. Rainey, Stephen, Kevin McGillivray, Simi Akintoye, Tyr Fothergill, Christoph Bublitz, and Bernd Stahl. 2020. Is the European Data Protection Regulation sufficient to deal with emerging data concerns relating to neurotechnology? Journal of Law and the Biosciences 7. Oxford University Press: lsaa051. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa051.

  15. Moreno, Jonathan, Michael L. Gross, Jack Becker, Blake Hereth, Neil D. Shortland III, and Nicholas G. Evans. 2022. The ethics of AI-assisted warfighter enhancement research and experimentation: Historical perspectives and ethical challenges. Frontiers in big Data 5. Frontiers: 978734. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2022.978734.

  16. Harris, Alexander, and Frederic Gilbert. 2022. Military Medicine Research: Incorporation of High Risk of Irreversible Harms into a Stratified Risk Framework for Clinical Trials. In , 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80443-5_16.

  17. Ienca, Marcello, Fabrice Jotterand, and Bernice S. Elger. 2018. From Healthcare to Warfare and Reverse: How Should We Regulate Dual-Use Neurotechnology? Neuron 97: 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.12.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Musk, Elon, and Neuralink. 2019. An Integrated Brain-Machine Interface Platform With Thousands of Channels. Journal of Medical Internet Research 21: e16194. https://doi.org/10.2196/16194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gaspar, Rui, Paul Rohde, and Jean-Christophe. Giger. 2019. Unconventional settings and uses of human enhancement technologies: A non-systematic review of public and experts’ views on self-enhancement and DIY biology/biohacking risks. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 1: 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Racine, Eric, Sebastian Sattler, and Wren Boehlen. 2021. Cognitive Enhancement: Unanswered Questions About Human Psychology and Social Behavior. Science and Engineering Ethics 27: 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00294-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sattler, Sebastian, and Dana Pietralla. 2022. Public attitudes towards neurotechnology: Findings from two experiments concerning Brain Stimulation Devices (BSDs) and Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs). PLOS ONE 17. Public Library of Science: e0275454. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275454.

  22. Dinh, Claire T., Stacey Humphries, and Anjan Chatterjee. 2020. Public Opinion on Cognitive Enhancement Varies across Different Situations. AJOB Neuroscience 11. Taylor & Francis: 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2020.1811797.

  23. Franke, Andreas G., Caroline Bonertz, Michaela Christmann, Stefan Engeser, and Klaus Lieb. 2012. Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement in Users and Nonusers of Stimulants for Cognitive Enhancement: A Pilot Study. AJOB Primary Research 3: 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2011.608411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Forlini, Cynthia, Jan Schildmann, Patrik Roser, Radim Beranek, and Jochen Vollmann. 2015. Knowledge, Experiences and Views of German University Students Toward Neuroenhancement: An Empirical-Ethical Analysis. Neuroethics 8: 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9218-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pohl, Sabine, Hannes Boelsen, and Elisabeth Hildt. 2018. Moral Attitudes Toward Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement (PCE): Differences and Similarities Among Germans With and Without PCE Experience. Frontiers in Pharmacology 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.01451.

  26. Funk, Cary, Brian Kennedy, and Elizabeth Podrebarac Sciupac. 2016. US public wary of biomedical technologies to ‘enhance’ human abilities. Pew Research Center. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag0684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fitz, Nicholas S., Roland Nadler, Praveena Manogaran, Eugene W. J. Chong, and Peter B. Reiner. 2014. Public Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement. Neuroethics 7: 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-013-9190-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sample, Matthew, Sebastian Sattler, Stefanie Blain-Moraes, David Rodríguez-Arias, and Eric Racine. 2020. Do Publics Share Experts’ Concerns about Brain-Computer Interfaces? A Trinational Survey on the Ethics of Neural Technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 45 (6): 1242–1270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919879220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ball, Natalie, and Gregor Wolbring. 2014. Cognitive enhancement: perceptions among parents of children with disabilities. Neuroethics 7. Springer: 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9201-8.

  30. Buckley, Rachel F., Michael M. Saling, Ingo Frommann, Steffen Wolfsgruber, and Michael Wagner. 2015. Subjective cognitive decline from a phenomenological perspective: a review of the qualitative literature. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 48. IOS Press: S125–S140.

  31. Pike, Kerryn E., Marina G. Cavuoto, Lily Li, Bradley J. Wright, and Glynda J. Kinsella. 2022. Subjective Cognitive Decline: Level of Risk for Future Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment, a Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies. Neuropsychol Rev 32 (4): 703–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-021-09522-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bussing, Regina, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Tina Gurnani, Cynthia W. Garvan, Dana Mason, Kenji Noguchi, and Dolores Albarracin. 2016. Willingness to use ADHD Self-Management: Mixed Methods Study of Perceptions by Adolescents and Parents. J Child Fam Stud 25 (2): 562–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0241-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Taghizadeh, Neda, Gaylene Heard, Andrew Davidson, Katrina Williams, and David Story. 2019. The experiences of children with autism spectrum disorder, their caregivers and health care providers during day procedure: A mixed methods study. Pediatric Anesthesia 29. Wiley Online Library: 927–937. https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.13689.

  34. Thordardottir, Björg, Agneta Malmgren Fänge, Connie Lethin, Danae Rodriguez Gatta, and Carlos Chiatti. 2019. Acceptance and use of innovative assistive technologies among people with cognitive impairment and their caregivers: a systematic review. BioMed research international 2019. Hindawi. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9196729.

  35. O’Shea, Alison, Annette Boaz, Stephen Hanney, Maarten Kok, Robert Borst, Subhash Pokhrel, and Teresa Jones. 2021. Expect the unexpected? Challenges of prospectively exploring stakeholder engagement in research. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8. Palgrave: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00770-5.

  36. Mitani, Aya A., and Sebastien Haneuse. 2020. Small Data Challenges of Studying Rare Diseases. JAMA Network Open 3: e201965. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Health Care Services, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, and Committee on National Statistics. 2018. What Do We Mean by “Small Populations”? In Improving Health Research on Small Populations: Proceedings of a Workshop. National Academies Press (US).

  38. Nijboer, Femke, Jens Clausen, Brendan Z. Allison, and Pim Haselager. 2013. The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders’ Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing. Neuroethics 6: 541–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-011-9132-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Klein, Eran, Natalia Montes Daza, Ishan Dasgupta, Kate MacDuffie, Andreas Schönau, Garrett Flynn, Dong Song, and Sara Goering. 2023. Views of stakeholders at risk for dementia about deep brain stimulation for cognition. Brain Stimulation 16. Elsevier: 742–747.

  40. Keeter, Scott. 2019. Growing and improving Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/2019/02/27/growing-and-improving-pew-research-centers-american-trends-panel/. Accessed 1 Apr 2024.

  41. R Core Team (2023) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed 1 Apr 2024.

  42. Larntz, Kinley. 1978. Small-sample comparisons of exact levels for chi-squared goodness-of-fit statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association 73 (362): 253–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Crans, Gerald G., and Gerald G. Shuster. 2008. How conservative is Fisher’s exact test? A quantitative evaluation of the two-sample comparative binomial trial. Statistics in medicine 27 (18): 3598–611. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kim, Hae-Young. 2016. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Sample size calculation 2. Comparison of two independent proportions. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics 41: 154–156. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2016.41.2.154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wickham, Hadley. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (version 3.4.3). Springer-Verlag New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3.

  46. Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang, and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research 15. Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA: 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.

  47. Ulrich, Connie M., and Sarah J. Ratcliffe. 2007. Hypothetical vignettes in empirical bioethics research. In Empirical methods for bioethics: A primer, 11:161–181. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1479-3709(07)11008-6.

  48. Daniels, Norman. 2000. Normal functioning and the treatment-enhancement distinction. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9. Cambridge University Press: 309–322. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003075004-35.

  49. Stowsky, Jay. 2003. Secrets or Shields to Share? New Dilemmas for Dual Use Technology Development and the Quest for Military and Commercial Advantage in the Digital Age. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Furui, Sadaoki. 2010. History and development of speech recognition. In Speech Technology: Theory and Applications, ed. Fang Chen and Kristiina Jokinen, 1–18. New York, NY: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73819-2_1.

  51. Jansons, Paul, J. Dalla Via, R.M. Daly, J.J. Fyfe, E. Gvozdenko, and D. Scott. 2022. Delivery of Home-Based Exercise Interventions in Older Adults Facilitated by Amazon Alexa: A 12-week Feasibility Trial. The journal of nutrition, health & aging 26: 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-021-1717-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pradhan, Alisha, Kanika Mehta, and Leah Findlater. 2018. “Accessibility Came by Accident”: Use of Voice-Controlled Intelligent Personal Assistants by People with Disabilities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–13. Montreal QC Canada: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174033.

  53. Rogers, Everett M., Arvind Singhal, and Margaret M. Quinlan. 2014. Diffusion of innovations. In An integrated approach to communication theory and research, 432–448. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203710753-35.

  54. Sandberg, Anders, and Julian Savulescu. 2011. The social and economic impacts of cognitive enhancement. Enhancing human capacities. Wiley Online Library: 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444393552.ch6.

  55. Wolbring, Gregor. 2006. The unenhanced underclass. In Better Humans? The Politics of Human Enhancement and Life Extension, vol. 21, ed. Paul Miller and James Wilsdon, 122–129. London: Demos.

  56. Goering, Sara, and Eran Klein. 2020. Neurotechnologies and Justice by, with, and for Disabled People. In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Disability, ed. Adam Cureton and David T. Wasserman, 0. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190622879.013.33.

  57. Smith, André, Karen Kobayashi, Neena Chappell, and Dann Hoxsey. 2011. The controversial promises of cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias: A qualitative study of caregivers’ experiences. Journal of Aging Studies 25. Elsevier: 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2011.03.002.

  58. Rosenberg, Anna, Nicola Coley, Alexandra Soulier, Jenni Kulmala, Hilkka Soininen, Sandrine Andrieu, Miia Kivipelto, and Mariagnese Barbera. 2020. Experiences of dementia and attitude towards prevention: a qualitative study among older adults participating in a prevention trial. BMC geriatrics 20. BioMed Central: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-1493-4.

  59. Lohmeyer, Johann Leopold, Zümrüt Alpinar-Sencan, and Silke Schicktanz. 2021. Attitudes towards prediction and early diagnosis of late-onset dementia: a comparison of tested persons and family caregivers. Aging & Mental Health 25. Taylor & Francis: 832–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2020.1727851.

  60. Boulicault, Marion, Sara Goering, Eran Klein, Darin Dougherty, and Alik S. Widge. 2023. The Role of Family Members in Psychiatric Deep Brain Stimulation Trials: More Than Psychosocial Support. Neuroethics 16. Springer: 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-023-09520-7.

  61. Fins, Joseph J., Megan S. Wright, Jaimie M. Henderson, and Nicholas D. Schiff. 2022. Subject and family perspectives from the central thalamic deep brain stimulation for traumatic brain injury study: part I. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 31. Cambridge University Press: 419–443. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0963180122000226.

  62. Gilbert, Frederic, Christopher Pham, John Noel Viaña, and W. Gillam. 2019. Increasing Brain-Computer Interface Media Depictions: Pressing Ethical Concerns. Brain-Computer Interfaces 6. https://doi.org/10.1080/2326263X.2019.1655837.

  63. Rainie, Lee, Cary Funk, Monica Anderson, and Alec Tyson. 2022. AI and human enhancement: americans’ openness is tempered by a range of concerns. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/03/17/ai-and-human-enhancement-americans-openness-is-tempered-by-a-range-of-concerns/. Accessed 4/1/2024.

  64. Kennedy, Brian, and Alec Tyson. 2023. Americans’ trust in scientists, positive views of science continue to decline. Pew Research Center.  https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/11/14/americans-trust-in-scientists-positive-views-of-science-continue-to-decline/. Accessed 4/1/2024.

  65. Finger, Guilherme, Emerson Rodrigues da Silva, and Asdrubal Falavigna. 2013. Use of methylphenidate among medical students: a systematic review. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira 59. Associação Médica Brasileira: 285–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ramb.2012.10.007.

  66. Sharif, Safia, Amira Guirguis, Suzanne Fergus, and Fabrizio Schifano. 2021. The Use and Impact of Cognitive Enhancers among University Students: A Systematic Review. Brain Sciences 11: 355. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11030355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Pew Research Center for making data publicly available. Pew bears no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations of the data presented here. The opinions expressed herein, including any implications for policy, are those of the authors and not of Pew Research Center. The author would also like to thank Erika Versalovic, Tim Brown, Natalia Montes and other members of the Center for Neurotechnology neuroethics group at the University of Washington, Emily Lehman and the Layton Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at the Oregon Health and Science University, and Jason Karlawish and the Penn Memory Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

Funding

Research reported in this publication was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health (RF1MH117800-01), National Institute on Aging (P30AG066518, P30AG008017), and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS110012). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Life Sciences Building, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA

    Asad Beck

  2. Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Health Sciences Building, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA

    Asad Beck

  3. Department of Philosophy, University of Washington, Savery Hall, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA

    Asad Beck, Andreas Schönau, Sara Goering & Eran Klein

  4. Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, 1900 Ninth Ave. Seattle, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA

    Kate MacDuffie

  5. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Bioethics and Palliative Care, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA

    Kate MacDuffie

  6. The Dana Foundation, 1270 Avenue of the Americas, 12 Floor, New York, NY, 10020, USA

    Ishan Dasgupta

  7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Denney Research Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089-1111, USA

    Garrett Flynn & Dong Song

  8. Department of Neurology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, 97239-3098, USA

    Eran Klein

Authors
  1. Asad Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Schönau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kate MacDuffie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ishan Dasgupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Garrett Flynn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dong Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sara Goering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Eran Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Asad Beck: Data analysis, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. Andreas Schönau: Data curation, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Kate MacDuffie: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing. Ishan Dasgupta: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing—review & editing. Garrett Flynn: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing—review & editing. Dong Song: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing—review & editing. Sara Goering: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing—review & editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Eran Klein: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Supervision, Writing—review & editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eran Klein.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Oregon Health and Sciences IRB (January 5, 2021/No 22238). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 908 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beck, A., Schönau, A., MacDuffie, K. et al. "In the spectrum of people who are healthy": Views of individuals at risk of dementia on using neurotechnology for cognitive enhancement. Neuroethics 17, 24 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-024-09557-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-024-09557-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation