Electrical and Magnetic Neuromodulation Technologies and Brain-Computer Interfaces: Ethical Considerations for Enhancement of Brain Function in Healthy People – A Systematic Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This scoping review aimed to synthesize the fragmented evidence on ethical concerns related to the use of electrical and magnetic neuromodulation technologies, as well as brain-computer interfaces for enhancing brain function in healthy individuals, addressing the gaps in understanding spurred by rapid technological advancements and ongoing ethical debates. METHODS: The following databases and interfaces were queried: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, PhilPapers, and Google Scholar. Additional references were identified via bibliographies of included citations. References included experimental studies, reviews, opinion papers, and letters to editors published in peer-reviewed journals that explored the ethical implications of electrical and magnetic neuromodulation technologies and brain-computer interfaces for enhancement of brain function in healthy adult or pediatric populations. RESULTS: A total of 23 articles were included in the review, of which the majority explored expert opinions in the form of qualitative studies or surveys as well as reviews. Two studies explored the view of laypersons on the topic. The majority of evidence pointed to ethical concerns relating to a lack of sufficient efficacy and safety data for these new technologies, with the risks of invasive procedures potentially outweighing the benefits. Additionally, concerns about potential socioeconomic consequences were raised that could further exacerbate existing socioeconomic inequalities, as well as the risk of changes to person and environment. CONCLUSION: This scoping review highlights a critical shortage of ethical research on electrical and magnetic neuromodulation technologies and brain-computer interfaces for enhancement of brain function in healthy individuals, with key concerns regarding the safety, efficacy, and socioeconomic impacts of neuromodulation technologies. It underscores the urgent need for integrating ethical considerations into neuroscientific research to address significant gaps and ensure equitable access and outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.240 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".