Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Citizen Neuroscience: Brain–Computer Interface Researcher Perspectives on Do-It-Yourself Brain Research

  • Original Research/Scholarship
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Devices that record from and stimulate the brain are currently available for consumer use. The increasing sophistication and resolution of these devices provide consumers with the opportunity to engage in do-it-yourself brain research and contribute to neuroscience knowledge. The rise of do-it-yourself (DIY) neuroscience may provide an enriched fund of neural data for researchers, but also raises difficult questions about data quality, standards, and the boundaries of scientific practice. We administered an online survey to brain–computer interface (BCI) researchers to gather their perspectives on DIY brain research. While BCI researcher concerns about data quality and reproducibility were high, the possibility of expert validation of data generated by citizen neuroscientists mitigated concerns. We discuss survey results in the context of an established ethical framework for citizen science, and describe the potential of constructive collaboration between citizens and researchers to both increase data collection and advance understanding of how the brain operates outside the confines of the lab.

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

Access this article

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

Notes

  1. While we specifically surveyed BCI researchers, we anticipate that our discussion is applicable to neuroscientists more broadly as key stakeholders in citizen neuroscience.

  2. We recognize that not all readers will agree with this more expansive notion of citizen neuroscience. A fully developed argument in support of this view is needed but not possible here. Suffice it to say, settling this question is important but not necessary for the kind of ethical exploration engaged in here.

References

  • Ajiboye, A. B., Willett, F. R., Young, D. R., Memberg, W. D., Murphy, B. A., Miller, J. P., et al. (2017). Restoration of reaching and grasping movements through brain-controlled muscle stimulation in a person with tetraplegia: a proof-of-concept demonstration. The Lancet, 389(10081), 1821–1830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. W., & Jensen, P. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, J., & Shamoo, A. E. (2015). Rethinking authorship in the era of collaborative research. Accountability in Research, 22(5), 267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borton, D., Yin, M., Aceros, J., & Nurmikko, A. (2013). An implantable wireless neural interface for recording cortical circuit dynamics in moving primates. Journal of Neural Engineering, 10(2), 026010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouton, C. E., Shaikhouni, A., Annetta, N. V., Bockbrader, M. A., Friedenberg, D. A., Nielson, D. M., et al. (2016). Restoring cortical control of functional movement in a human with quadriplegia. Nature, 533(7602), 247–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Citizen Science Association. (2020). Citizen science resources related to the Covid-19 pandemic. https://www.citizenscience.org/covid-19/.

  • Cohn, J. P. (2008). Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience, 58(3), 192–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collinger, J. L., Wodlinger, B., Downey, J. E., Wang, W., Tyler-Kabara, E. C., Weber, D. J., et al. (2013). High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet, 381(9866), 557–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cranshaw, J., Kittur, A. (2011). The polymath project: Lessons from a successful online collaboration in mathematics. [cited 2019 July 4]. http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1.

  • Darpa.mil. Nonsurgical neural interfaces could significantly expand use of neurotechnology. [cited 2018 June 19]. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2018-03-16.

  • de la Loge, C., Dimova, S., Mueller, K., Phillips, G., Durgin, T. L., Wicks, P., et al. (2016). PatientsLikeMe® online epilepsy community: Patient characteristics and predictors of poor health-related quality of life. Epilepsy & Behavior, 63, 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debelius, J. W., Vazquez-Baeza, Y., McDonald, D., Xu, Z., Wolfe, E., & Knight, R. (2016). Turning participatory microbiome research into usable data: Lessons from the American gut project. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v17i1.1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, D. J., Cortes, M., Wortman-Jutt, S., Putrino, D., Bikson, M., Thickbroom, G., et al. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation and sports performance. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Facebook Inc. Imagining a new interface: Hands-free communication without saying a word. https://tech.fb.com/imagining-a-new-interface-hands-free-communication-without-saying-a-word/. Accessed 30 Mar 2020.

  • Fiske, A., Prainsack, B., Buyx, A. (2018). Conceptual and ethical considerations for citizen science in biomedicine. In Personal Health Science (pp. 195–217). Wiesbadeen: Springer. [cited 2018 September 19]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326734794.

  • Ghouila, A., Siwo, G. H., Entfellner, J. B. D., Panji, S., Button-Simons, K. A., Davis, S. Z., et al. (2018). Hackathons as a means of accelerating scientific discoveries and knowledge transfer. Genome Research, 28(5), 759–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greshake, B., Bayer, P. E., Rausch, H., & Reda, J. (2014). openSNP—A crowdsourced web resource for personal genomics. PLoS ONE, 9(3), 89204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochberg, L. R., Bacher, D., Jarosiewicz, B., Masse, N. Y., Simeral, J. D., Vogel, J., et al. (2012). Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature, 485(7398), 372–375. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochberg, L. R., Serruya, M. D., Friehs, G. M., Mukand, J. A., Saleh, M., Caplan, A. H., et al. (2006). Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature, 442(7099), 164–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • How sharing your health data could change medical research | TIME [Internet]. [cited 2018 September 19]. http://time.com/collection-post/3615161/sharing-health-data/.

  • https://www.foc.us/.

  • Ienca, M., Haselager, P., Emanuel, E. J. (2018). Brain leaks and consumer neurotechnology (Vol. 36). Nature Publishing Group. [cited 2019 June 2]. https://id.emotivcloud.com/eoidc/privacy/.

  • Janssens, A. C. J. W., Kraft, P. (2018). Research conducted using data obtained through online communities: Ethical implications of methodological limitations. [cited 2018 September 19]. www.plosmedicine.org.

  • Kim, S., Zimmerman, T., Haber, E. M. (2011). Creek watch: Pairing usefulness and usability for successful citizen science. [cited 2019 July 4]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221516109.

  • Lozano, A. M., Lipsman, N., Bergman, H., Brown, P., Chabardes, S., Chang, J. W., et al. (2019). Deep brain stimulation: current challenges and future directions. Nature Reviews Neurology, 15(3), 148–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, E. A., Donovan, E., Nishimura, Y., Case, N. A., Gillies, D. M., Gallardo-Lacourt, B., et al. New science in plain sight: Citizen scientists lead to the discovery of optical structure in the upper atmosphere. [cited 2018 March 18]. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/3/eaaq0030.full.pdf.

  • Marzullo, T. C., & Gage, G. J. (2012). The SpikerBox: A low cost, open-source bioamplifier for increasing public participation in neuroscience inquiry. PLoS one, 7(3).

  • Maslen, H., Douglas, T., Cohen Kadosh, R., Levy, N., & Savulescu, J. (2014). The regulation of cognitive enhancement devices: extending the medical model. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 1(1), 68–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naufel, S., & Klein, E. (2020). Brain–computer interface (BCI) researcher perspectives on neural data ownership and privacy. Journal of Neural Engineering, 17(1), 016039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NIH announces national enrollment date for All of Us Research Program to advance precision medicine | National Institutes of Health (NIH) [Internet]. [cited 2019 July 4]. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-announces-national-enrollment-date-all-us-research-program-advance-precision-medicine.

  • Open Humans [Internet]. https://www.openhumans.org/.

  • Pham, M., Goering, S., Sample, M., Huggins, J. E., & Klein, E. (2018). Asilomar survey: Researcher perspectives on ethical principles and guidelines for BCI research. Brain-Computer Interfaces, 5(4), 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B., Elliott, K. C., & Miller, A. K. (2015). A framework for addressing ethical issues in citizen science. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 475–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riesch, H., & Potter, C. (2014). Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riggall, K., Forlini, C., Carter, A., Hall, W., Weier, M., Partridge, B., et al. (2015) Researchers’ perspectives on scientific and ethical issues with transcranial direct current stimulation: An international survey. Nature Publishing Group. [cited 2019 June 2]. www.nature.com/scientificreports.

  • Roskams, J., & Popović, Z. (2016). Power to the people: addressing big data challenges in neuroscience by creating a new cadre of citizen neuroscientists. Neuron, 92(3), 658–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotman, D., Preece, J., Hammock, J., Procita, K., Hansen, D., Parr, C., et al. (2012) Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. [cited 2018 June 10]. http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/trs/2011-28/2011-28.pdf.

  • Roy, H. E., Pocock, M. J. O., Preston, C. D., Roy, D. B., Savage, J., Tweddle, J. C., et al. (2012). Understanding citizen science and environmental monitoring. 179. https://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/citizensciencereview.pdf.

  • Skarpaas, T. L., Jarosiewicz, B., & Morrell, M. J. (2019). Brain-responsive neurostimulation for epilepsy (RNS ® System). Epilepsy Research, 153(218), 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2019.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, B., Iliff, M., Bonney, R., Fink, D., Sullivan, B. L., Wood, C. L., et al. (2009). eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. [cited 2019 July 4]. http://www.neoninc.org/.

  • Waddell, T. F., Auriemma, J. R., Sundar, S. S. (2016). Make it simple, or force users to read? Paraphrased design improves comprehension of end user license agreements. In Conference on human factors in computing systemsProceedings (pp. 5252–5056).

  • Wexler, A. (2017). The social context of “do-it-yourself” brain stimulation: neurohackers, biohackers, and lifehackers. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, A., & Wilbanks, J. (2019). The rise of citizen science in health and biomedical research. American Journal of Bioethics, 19(8), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1619859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wodlinger, B., Downey, J. E., Tyler-Kabara, E. C., Schwartz, A. B., Boninger, M. L., & Collinger, J. L. (2015). Ten-dimensional anthropomorphic arm control in a human brain–machine interface: difficulties, solutions, and limitations. Journal of Neural Engineering, 12(1), 016011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, J. P., McGowan, M. L., Teare, H. J. A., Coathup, V., Fishman, J. R., Settersten, R. A., et al. (2016). Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1), 33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • www.emotiv.com.

  • www.Fit2Cure.com.

  • www.neuropype.io.

  • Yin, M., Borton, D. A., Komar, J., Agha, N., Lu, Y., Li, H., et al. (2014). Wireless neurosensor for full-spectrum electrophysiology recordings during free behavior. Neuron, 84(6), 1170–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 23andMeBlog. https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/contributing-23andme-research/.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Sara Goering and the Center for Neurotechnology Neuroethics Thrust at the University of Washington for their feedback and comments on the manuscript. The authors also thank the BCI scientists who piloted the survey. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation EEC#1028725.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Naufel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Naufel is currently (I (Naufel) was not a FB employee when I first submitted the manuscript but I am now at the time of publication) a Facebook employee and is part of the company’s Brain–Computer Interface group. Klein has no conflicts to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

figure afigure afigure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Naufel, S., Klein, E. Citizen Neuroscience: Brain–Computer Interface Researcher Perspectives on Do-It-Yourself Brain Research. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 2769–2790 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00227-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00227-z

Keywords

Navigation