Neuroimplants face ethical hurdles, study finds

In a recent journal article Scientific reports, The researchers conducted several focus group sessions with developers of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven neural implants. Although these technologies represent some of the most exciting, effective, and cutting-edge clinical research of the current decade, their use raises ethical challenges that must be overcome before they can be implemented. The study focuses on design aspects, current challenges faced during clinical trials, and overall impacts of these technologies on their users (patients) and society.

Research: Developer perspectives on the ethics of AI-driven neural implants: a qualitative study. Image credit: metamorworks / Shutterstock

The current study identifies three key areas of the empirical literature where substantial progress needs to be made: 1. Briefly defining the objectives, uncertainties, and deployment constraints facing the application in question; 2. Model accuracy and reliability improvements and 3. User privacy. Finally, the paper discusses possible mitigation measures that could speed up this process and allow this promising sector to be implemented sooner.

AI-Driven Neural Implants

Neural implants, commonly known as 'brain implants', are surgically placed inside the patient's body. These brain-computer interfaces (PCIs) are programmed to interact with or hack the brain's neurons with little or no side effects. They are intended to rehabilitate patients suffering from neurological impairments (vision, speech and hearing).

Despite their relative novelty, neural implants for cognitive enhancement or restoration and patient rehabilitation are some of the fastest growing areas of medical research in the world today and constitute a great confluence between neuroscience and nanotechnology. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) and signal processing technologies have further strengthened research in the field, highlighting the significant long-term quality of life (QoL) that these scientific advances can provide. Already, scientists and AI developers are developing AI-driven cochlear implants (AI-CI), AI-driven visual nerve implants (AI-VNI) and AI-driven implantable speech-brain-computer-interface (AI-speech-PCI) for hearing, respectively. Alleviate visual and speech impairments.

Unfortunately, the pace of these technological advances has outstripped the ethical and user-centered, non-clinical debate, raising strong concerns about the safety and user privacy-preserving design and implementation of AI. The current study provides a platform for this conversation, as researchers involved in the design, testing, and evaluation of instruments present an ideal focus group to discuss these challenges and brainwashing mitigation measures. It combines these results into potentially actionable mitigation recommendations.

About the study

The current study is a qualitative analysis that aims to explore different perspectives from current and past experts in neurotechnology, particularly those currently involved in the development of Cis, VNIs and speech-BCIs. Participants for the study were selected based on expertise in neuroscience-based academic research, rehabilitation, product design and marketing, and social and psychological professionals. Selected participants who provided written informed consent (N = 22) were included in the study, 19 of whom provided complete information (presence at all required FG sessions) and were included in the qualitative set.

„Due to the wide variety of fields involved in the development of VNI, we organized two focus groups including developers of VNIs (FG2 and FG3. Trials) who were involved in the clinical implementation of retinal implants in FG3 and respondents who may be involved in future clinical trials of VNI.

Each focus group (FG) was semi-structured, included 9–12 participants and was conducted for an average of 88 minutes. Although introduced briefly, discussion topics are not rigidly defined, allowing developers to provide their experience-based perspectives on the field's challenges and potential mitigation measures. Data analysis was carried out thematically for each of the three broad issues identified during the FGs.

Study findings and conclusions

The present study identified three main themes during the three FGs – 1. Design aspects, 2. Challenges to keep in mind during clinical trials, 3. Overall impacts on users and society (especially privacy and ethics).

Respondents highlighted the need for future AI-driven technologies to significantly surpass the „gold standards” of today's neurorehabilitation implementations (e.g., hearing aids). These technologies include improvements in user-friendliness (ease of use) and performance before they provide tangible benefits to society. The reliability and accuracy of these new technologies were also brought up for discussion, with respondents agreeing that these devices should be designed from the ground up with user safety and device reliability in mind.

Many of these challenges require further clinical trials to be answered and resolved. Unfortunately, clinical trials involving these surgically implanted, invasive devices present their own challenges – 1. Surgical risks must account for invasive brain surgery and trade-offs between precision and generalizability, 2. Participants must be carefully selected after explicit informed consent based on their clinical status. Symptoms, sociodemographic and medical histories, and 3. Post-pathway abandonment is more detrimental to the patient in early trial termination due to the semi/permanent nature of the implants and the location of their placement (patient's brain).

Finally, social data revealed that respondents were concerned with the ethical and moral considerations of these technologies not only for their users, but for society as a whole – enabling patients to accidentally hear individuals in their surroundings by implementing audio-enhancement implants. compromising the privacy of their neighbors and expanding society. Given the irreplaceable role of community approval in the success of this (and all) novel endeavors, it is essential to ensure that people (users and their neighbors) retain their sense of security and privacy.

„Our study shows that a tension arises between the potential benefits of AI in these devices in terms of the efficiency of complex data input and enhanced options, and the potential negative effects on user safety, reliability and mental privacy. While the functional device will increase independence and therefore enhance users' autonomy, the potential negative effects may simultaneously harm users' autonomy. Although important recommendations have been made to mitigate these issues, ethical analysis is needed to further explore this tension, including recommendations for the development of neuroscience and mechanisms for improved user control.”