Qualitative studies involving users of clinical neurotechnology: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rise of a new generation of intelligent neuroprostheses, brain-computer interfaces (BCI) and adaptive closed-loop brain stimulation devices hastens the clinical deployment of neurotechnologies to treat neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. However, it remains unclear how these nascent technologies may impact the subjective experience of their users. To inform this debate, it is crucial to have a solid understanding how more established current technologies already affect their users. In recent years, researchers have used qualitative research methods to explore the subjective experience of individuals who become users of clinical neurotechnology. Yet, a synthesis of these more recent findings focusing on qualitative methods is still lacking. METHODS: To address this gap in the literature, we systematically searched five databases for original research articles that investigated subjective experiences of persons using or receiving neuroprosthetics, BCIs or neuromodulation with qualitative interviews and raised normative questions. RESULTS: 36 research articles were included and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Our findings synthesise the current scientific literature and reveal a pronounced focus on usability and other technical aspects of user experience. In parallel, they highlight a relative neglect of considerations regarding agency, self-perception, personal identity and subjective experience. CONCLUSIONS: Our synthesis of the existing qualitative literature on clinical neurotechnology highlights the need to expand the current methodological focus as to investigate also non-technical aspects of user experience. Given the critical role considerations of agency, self-perception and personal identity play in assessing the ethical and legal significance of these technologies, our findings reveal a critical gap in the existing literature. This review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the current qualitative research landscape on neurotechnology and the limitations thereof. These findings can inform researchers on how to study the subjective experience of neurotechnology users more holistically and build patient-centred neurotechnology.
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 | 0.080 | 0.216 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".