Mind Reading and Writing Feature of Neurotechnology

Abstract

Brain reading technologies are rapidly being adult in a number of neuroscience fields. These technologies can record, procedure, and decode neural signals. This has been described as 'listen reading engineering' in some instances, especially in popular media. Should the public at large, be concerned about this kind of engineering science? Can information technology really read minds? Concerns nearly heed-reading might include the thought that, in having one'southward mind open to view, the possibility for free deliberation, and for self-conception, are eroded where one isn't at liberty to privately mull things over. Themes including privacy, cognitive liberty, and self-conception and expression appear to be areas of vital ethical concern. Overall, this article explores whether brain reading technologies are really mind reading technologies. If they are, ethical ways to deal with them must exist developed. If they are not, researchers and technology developers need to notice ways to describe them more accurately, in order to dispel unwarranted concerns and address appropriately those that are warranted.

Introduction

This newspaper will explore ethical issues arising from neural technologies in terms of mind-reading. The term 'heed-reading' has been used to describe the mechanisms employed by brain–computer interfaces (BCIs), and neural decoding using neurotechnologies. In the philosophy of heed, the mind refers to mental states (imagination, emotions, intentions, perception, decision making, etc.), and with brain interfacing technologies, neuroscience is now able to highlight some correlations betwixt mental states and cerebral activity. There is thus some material footing for the mind.

Yet, the access to some fabric basis of mental states remains piecemeal and does non embrace simultaneously all aspects of the mind. In other words, neural correlates remain physical imprints of the expression of the mind, only are not sufficient to exist thought of as constituting the whole mind itself. Confusion should be avoided between mind and piecemeal thoughts, and between reading mind and reading some neural imprints of thoughts. In detail, neural prostheses may allow reading neural correlate fragments of mental states but not the whole heed on its global scale. The extent to which all the pieces of thoughts that can be decoded from neural recordings constitute whole thoughts thus remains unclear. Beginning, we address this question generally, and so more specifically with reference to the context of a speech BCI. For the speech BCI we ask: to what extent might voice communication prostheses permit admission to our thoughts?

While people in general are quite reliable in 'reading the mind' of i another, according to familiar behavioural and linguistic cues, they are really mainly able to infer some other's thoughts based on the signs the other person externalises intentionally (hidden and other such 'tells' nonetheless). In particular, access to some other's inner thinking remains inaccessible, it existence possible only to make predictions about that. A technological turn within this familiar practice excites ethical concern, since the blazon and content of information that one may access with a 'mind-reading' device may strongly diverge from human inferences based in more traditional interpersonal methods. Technology, perhaps, makes a tacit claim to be objective in a style that much interpersonal interpretation does not. Putting one'southward mind in the realm of objective legibility may appear to include more jeopardy than putting it in familiar social, fallible, realms for this reason. The specific notion of technologically-mediated mind-reading is apparently a particular kind of business concern, and and then information technology requires a specific word.

In order to structure the enquiry equally nosotros go forward, we need to investigate:

1. ane.

   What BCI and neural decoding can currently do, and what may exist possible soon

2. two.

   Upstanding problems in current and time to come neurotechnology

3. 3.

   Speech neuroprosthesis as a heed-reading device

We will then ask, farther:

1. 4.

   How ought we to treat these ethical issues?

2. 5.

   What further assay is needed?

By getting a handle on the technological capabilities of neurotechnologies, like BCIs, nosotros can realistically frame the ethical concerns that may arise. As well, in club to consider how ethicists ought to react to emerging issues, or pre-empt likely future issues, a articulate moving picture of what happens in encephalon decoding contexts is necessary. Funding bodies, and the researchers they fund, have specific responsibilities hither. In amalgam calls for research, funders steer efforts in specific directions. In creating these technologies, researchers are relied upon to piece of work responsibly, and to communicate conspicuously the nature of their work, both in terms of present capability and likely future scenarios. Ethicists demand clear pictures of what is happening with funding strategies, and technology development, in order to reflect upon and respond to information technology. Ultimately, such reflections may proceed to seed policy communication, every bit well equally colour public perceptions. This is vital for a clear perspective on the research ecosystem, including how this impinges upon wider socio-political realities. We volition explore this generally, equally well as going deeper into a speech communication prosthesis as a special case. This is considered especially interesting given the proximity between much thought, and linguistic communication.

What BCI and Neural Decoding Can Currently Do, and What May be Possible Soon

At the about general level, neurotechnologies piece of work by recording electrical activity in the encephalon, and applying various processes to the outputs obtained. Recording can happen within the brain itself via macroscopic or microscopic intracerebral/intracortical probes, on its surface with electrocorticography (ECoG), or from non-invasive electro- or magneto-cencephalography (EEG/Million) recording devices positioned over the head. All types of brain recordings can exist correlated with a diverseness of concrete and cerebral activity.

Given the ongoing activity in the field of brain-reading and attempts to correlate this work with mental states, it is important to remain vigilant of social, legal and policy dimensions of primary research and concurrent applied science development. The nature of the private equally an agent in their own right, a locus of intentional action, may exist challenged in the development of technologies that appear to read minds, whether or not they actually read minds (Mecacci and Haselager 2019).

Reading the mind, similar reading a volume, implies something about mind'south existence potentially open to view. This would mark a radical departure from conventional accounts of one's heed equally attainable only to oneself. In a mind-reading context, 1 person might gain access to another's ideas, thoughts, intentional, emotional, perceptual states, or their memories. This might be done with or without permission. It could offer the promise of heady new modes of advice, self-expression, and mutual agreement. Often the stuff of scientific discipline fiction, this prospect tin have alarming dimensions concerning who might have access to the mind, as well as implications for how persons might be judged. In a world of mind-reading ought a person to be judged in terms of what they reveal voluntarily, or what can be read from their thoughts?

For example, since 2013 it has been known that detection of a specific type of signal (the 'P300' moving ridge) can play a office in 'spying' on brain activity to excerpt confidential data. This tin be done with subliminal cues, perhaps to gain data predicting personal beliefs. Researchers constructed a game and recorded the brain action of its players. These signals could be candy to arm-twist details nearly bank Pin numbers and related private data without the game histrion knowing (Ienca et al. 2018). This was washed through recording brain activity during the game, and processing the signal to search for P300 waves in response to hidden cues. Encephalon data is thus conspicuously highly sensitive data because it can house information that a subject field may not wish to externalise, just which may even so become accessible by others, in specific situations using neurotechnology.

This bespeak is raised quite acutely where neurotechnology would have applications in the legal sphere. Meegan (2008) discusses police enforcement applications of memory detection. Recognition of a scene, or an object, tin exist the sort of thing detectable in neural activity regardless of claims overtly made. As far as memory-reading goes, this might be seen equally a litmus test—the thought of 'guilty knowledge' every bit a smoking gun in a court. Would memories that are stored, but are not being reinstated at the present moment, be available to the heed-reader? This is a neuroscience question virtually how are memories stored, and the difference betwixt a memory that has been stored and one that is being reinstated. It is also an ethical question, however, in that information technology has ramifications for what limits we ought to apply in treating them as readable in machine-like terms.

Through recording signals from diverse regions of the brain, research has suggested that quite fine-grained information tin be partly read from brain activity. Motor plans, visual imagery, percepts such as faces (Chang and Tsao 2017), speech (Akbari et al. 2018) decision and intentions, landmark places, moods can all be predicted from neural recordings (Haynes et al. 2007; Kay et al. 2008; Roelfsema et al. 2018, p. thirteen; Sani et al. 2018). Existing inquiry technologies can be used to decode the neural correlates of mental images likewise, the things seen past a person. In controlled circumstances, identification algorithms operating on fMRI data, can option the image viewed past an experimental participant from a known set of exemplars. Experiments here tin can achieve over xc% accuracy (Kay et al. 2008). The idea of mental privacy certainly seems to be challenged by these kinds of activities. Such results appear to demonstrate that mental content can be 'read off' from encephalon measurements. This implies that though someone may be certain that they accept unique, privileged access to their own thoughts, that certainty can be misplaced (Eickhoff and Langner 2019; Farah et al. 2009; run into Mecacci and Haselager 2019).

If we want to focus on mind reading every bit a point of reference for ethical concerns surrounding neurotechnology, nosotros tin ask of the technologies and techniques mentioned here: Is this mind-reading? We would exist compelled to answer, non exactly. In terms of the approaches to identifying mental images, for example, the experimental protocol operates on the footing of a modelled receptive field, and activation data for sets of images. The images decoded from the fMRI data are selected from a known list, and represented as matching patterns of data. This is detailed and interesting work, illuminating much of how visual representations piece of work in the visual system. But it isn't the case that, in an uncontrolled environment, a device can reconstruct the visual feel of a given individual.

In the legal example, what can be said is that the techniques involve careful attending to specific neural activity in specific contexts. A memory tin't simply be 'read' as one could read a sentence on a page. This kind of retention detection exploits associations among known stimuli and evoked neural signals in guild to warrant inferences almost a subject'southward past experiences or perceptions, like recognition of a particular image. If, when shown a crime scene, my encephalon exhibits a response associated with familiarity it may indicate that I was there.

Clearly, at that place are risks and potential for false positives with this kind of approach. On the other hand, it seems equally clear is that the idea of accessing the real content of retention, or downloading a gear up of memories, doesn't come up. But this does not mean that ethical problems do not arise, still. Where some exercise might be taken as mind reading, nosotros ought not to be as well conceited in having ruled out 'real' listen reading on a technicality. An approach sensitive to upstanding, and socio-political realities is required in guild to bargain with the possibilities for pseudo-mind reading in which people may autumn prey to bad practices.

Ethical Issues in Current and Futurity Neurotechnology

To the extent that neurotechnologies embody somehow a merits that the heed may be open to view, they each raise ethics concerns relating to a range of issues, including mental privacy. Relating to this as well, is a business organisation over the reduction of mental states to sets of neural data. Nosotros volition go into more than particular on these and the related areas of cognitive liberty and cocky-formulation. Before delving into these functional issues arising from the use of neurotechnology, something should be said near the presentation of neurotechnology.

Outside the inquiry lab, at that place is a variety of BCIs already available commercially, including products like Cyberlink, Neural Impulse Actuator, Enobio, EPOC, Mindset (Gnanayutham and Good 2011). The potential prospects for applications based on these types of technology are interesting (Mégevand 2014). Withal, the plausibility of technological claims ought to be carefully scrutinised.

While the detection of neural signals is in principle easy, identifying them is difficult (Bashashati et al. 2007). A lot of research attempt aims at improving detection and recording engineering science. This should help to ameliorate the prospects for identifying recorded neural signals. Identification is centrally relevant to mind reading in that the signals recorded must be correlated somehow with mental states. It is ethically relevant too, not least owing to the prospects of misidentifying mental states via inappropriately candy encephalon recordings, or through misrepresenting the nature of the recording taking place.

Brain signals can be sorted into types. Recording sites can be classified in functional ways—visual, motor, memory, language areas, for example. That types of signals in specific areas appear to be 'behind' our conscious activity suggests that activity ought to exist classifiable in a quite objective way. At to the lowest degree some neurotechnological evolution paradigms would suggest that this was the case: claims have been made well-nigh the kinds of technologies discussed above every bit 'accessing thoughts', 'identifying images from brain signals', 'reading hidden intentions' (Haynes et al. 2007; Kay et al. 2008). Attention to the brain signals ways getting to the mental content, these claims propose.

But this may exist a case of overclaiming. It seems as if a swell deal more data than is captured through measuring brain signals is required if meaningful inferences about idea content are to exist drawn from them. For example, Yukiyasu Kamitani carried out experimental work aimed at 'decoding dreams' from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. Media reports presented this work equally if dreams were simply recorded from sleeping experimental participants (Akst 2013; Revell 2018). But in reality, 30–45 h of interview per participant was required in order to allocate a small number of objects dreamt of. This is impressive neuroscience experimentation, but information technology isn't information technology but a 'reading of the encephalon' to 'decode a dream'. Interview is an interesting supplement to brain signal recording considering information technology specifically deals in verbal disclosures virtually the experience of mental states.

When it is reported that Facebook or Microsoft will develop a device to allow users to operate computers with their minds or their thoughts (Forrest 2017; Solon 2017; Sulleyman 2018), this is peradventure a also-improvident claim. While many consumer devices are marketed equally 'neurotechnology,' it is implausible that they really operate via detecting and recording brain signals (Wexler and Thibault 2018). Far more likely is that such devices will respond to electrical activity in the muscles of the face, the signals in which are maybe 200 times equally strong as those in the brain, and much more closely positioned to the device's electrodes. In all likelihood, doing something like typing with such a device exploits micro-movements made when thinking advisedly nearly words and phrases. Muscles used in speaking those words are activated as if preparing to speak them, hence corresponding to them in a style that can be operationalised into a typing awarding. Indeed, this is the stated mode of operation for Google'south 'AlterEgo' device (Kapur et al. 2018; Whyte 2018).

Overclaiming is an ethical issue as information technology tin undermine confidence in neurotechnologies in at least ii ways: failing to deliver by misrepresenting technologies, and serving to heighten undue hopes and concerns. This builds on a misleading representation of how a device works, and its prospects as an effective technology. There are ethical implications from this in terms of user consent in using a device. There may be varying degrees of charade at work, given this sort of misrepresentation, that could affect how we ought to consider the potential uptake and use of devices, whether by experimental participants or consumers.

Drawing on the dream decoding example, we accept reason to call back that the objective recording of brain signals is insufficient as an account of a mental state precisely in that it has no experiential dimension. Thoughts occur within an internal model of the world from a particular point of view. This model cannot be straightforwardly generalised from subject to subject based on encephalon signal observation. But specific dimensions of this model can exist inferred, express in terms of predictability, and only after large amounts of training in contexts of rigorous research conditions. The objective hope of recording brain signals might exist exactly what cuts them off from the mind, which includes a subjective perspective.

The possibility of a too-zealous reduction of the mind to some neural information arises here as an upstanding concern. 'Mental' concepts can acquit word without reference to 'neuroscientific' concepts (also vice versa). How each might relate to natural kinds is an open question (Churchland 1989). There is therefore a ubiquitous question of interpretation to exist remembered, as the interplay betwixt mind and encephalon is considered. The thought-experiment of a 'cerebroscope' serves to highlight this.

The cerebroscope is a notional device that records all activity of all neurons in the brain on a millisecond by millisecond basis. With this full representation of neural action, the question is whether nosotros have a representation of the mind. Steven Rose suggests not—the nature of the brain as an evolving, plastic entity, means that millisecond past millisecond resolution of neural activity is non intelligible without a total map of the genesis of those active neurons and their connections:

…for the cerebroscope to be able to interpret a particular design of neural activity as representing my feel of seeing [a] ruby-red bus, it needs more than to be able to record the activity of all those neurons at this nowadays moment, over the few seconds of recognition and action. It needs to have been coupled upwards to my brain and body from conception—or at to the lowest degree from nascence, so as to be able to tape my entire neural and hormonal life history. Then, and only then, might it be possible for it to decode the neural information. (Choudhury and Slaby 2016, p. 62ff)

Nosotros should be careful in because these sorts of problems when it comes to thinking of mind-reading. Information technology might exist thought that the heed is akin to a infinite through which a putative mind-reader could walk, and examine what is to exist establish in there. But Steven Rose's point suggests a more situated kind of mind, reliant upon its genesis too as its state at some moment in fourth dimension. The point being fabricated is that fifty-fifty were one to perceive the idea of another somehow information technology could only be understood as a subjective thought, not equally an objective thought had by another.

Relatedly, Mecacci and Haselager (2019) talk over some philosophical ideas that chronicle to the privacy of 'the mental'. They depict a perspectivalism from A. J. Ayer regarding mental states, prioritising the privacy of the mind and its contents. Such a view would also appear to rule out mind-reading as they require a particular perspective, pregnant they appear non every bit objects in a mental infinite potentially open up to view, but private contents of a specific mind.

Misrepresentation of applied science, and reductionism, each announced to be dimensions of ethical importance in themselves. But a niggling more assay of each shows them to atomic number 82 to a broader set of ethical problems in neurotechnology. Where mental privacy is threatened, cognitive liberty may suffer. 'Cognitive liberty' includes the thought that one ought to be costless from encephalon manipulation in society to recollect one'due south ain thoughts (Sententia 2006). This concept ofttimes arises in the context of neuro-interventions in terms of police or psychiatry, or neuroenhancement (Boire 2001). Hither, it is most salient in connectedness with a potential loss of mental privacy.

Where mental privacy is uncertain, it is non clear that someone may experience free to recollect their ain thoughts. Where measurements of brain activity may be taken (rightly or wrongly) to reveal mental contents, neurophysiology itself could be seen as a potential informant on thought itself. This would exist to uproot very widely causeless notions well-nigh a person'south unique and privileged admission to their own thought. If a slap-up diarist was to go aware that their diary could be read past another, they might begin to write less candid or revealing entries. If anyone became sure that measurements of their brain might reveal whatever of their mental contents, how might they refrain from having aboveboard and revealing thoughts? This would amount to a deformation of normal means of thinking, in rather a distressing way.

With this distressing possibility, the very idea of cocky-conception besides is threatened. Where mental privacy concerns lead to inhibition of cognitive freedom, it would not be certain that one might feel complimentary to reverberate upon values, decisions, or propositions without threat of consequences. Considering ethically dubious thoughts, even if one considered them simply to develop ways to refute them, might become dangerous where the content of the thought might be read from the activity of the brain. Faced with applied science that appears to read minds, it seems ethical risks are posed past that technology in representing the mind as open to view.

Part of what information technology is to have a listen, and to be an amanuensis at all, able to act on one'southward reasoned opinions, includes reflection. This might mean that we wish to consider things nosotros wouldn't do, run through options we may disdain, or otherwise wish to reject. If we were to notice ourselves in a context where mental contents were thought of equally public, this cogitating practice could endure. Peculiarly where such mental data might be held to be a more genuine, unvarnished, account than 1 offered in spoken testimony. This might build upon the principle at stake in the 'guilty knowledge' instance from above. A chilling effect on thinking itself could materialise owing to the possibility of very intimate surveillance via brain recording.

The arbitration of thoughts, ideas, deliberations, into actions is part of autonomous agency and self-representation. The potential for indirectly representing such things in one's activity is part of what makes those actions one's ain. Where a mind-reading device could be imagined as 'cutting through' the mediation to proceeds straight access to mental contents, this would non necessarily brand for a more accurate representation of a person. Nor might it underwrite a amend explanation of their actions than an explanation they might volunteer. At the middle of this is the privacy of mental activity, and the space this allows us to deliberate. Nita Farahany has called this a 'right to cognitive liberty' (Farahany 2018).

The privacy of deliberation is very important in providing room for autonomy, and substance for agency. As has been mentioned, inner mental life can be characterised to a greater or bottom extent through ane's behavioural cues. The difference between the reluctant carrying out of a task, as opposed to an enthusiastic embracing of the aforementioned is often fairly obvious. Just indirect assessments of someone'due south state of mind in their activities is a familiar, fallible, and well-established interpersonal practice. The idea that objective information might be used to directly characterize an mental attitude, one time and for all, serves to undermine the part of agency. A decision to human action represents a moderation of impulses, reasons, desires. If a listen-reading device were deployed it would represent a claim on the existent state of a person's mind, certainly. Simply this could serve to downplay that person's activity equally more than circuitous than simply the outcome of a neural process.

Thinking of the cerebroscope instance, this is akin to the decontextualisation of neural recordings discussed there. The nature of the signals represented may brand fiddling sense outside of a biographical story. They may be likely, thereby, to misrepresent the person recorded. The fact that extensive testimony played such a large part in the dream reading experiment seems to back up this thought-experimental determination.

More broadly, it is important to discuss the purpose to which mind-reading devices are put. For example, wearing a bandage on a broken arm displays some dimensions of a person's physiological country. Nevertheless, this is of low concern because no one might gain from wanting to 'steal' such information. But what is problematic is the potential for the misuse of people's thoughts, choices, or preferences as inferred from neurotechnology. Fifty-fifty if thoughts are not accessible by a engineering, simply information technology is possible that they are taken to exist so, upstanding problems arise. With a commercialisation of neurotechnology as 'mind reading' applied science, these potentialities multiply as technology may be deployed where in that location is no item need. This leaves open a question about what purposes the engineering may be used for, and by whom. A potential variety of technologies, actors, purposes, and stakes make for a circuitous picture.

The socio-political ramifications of widespread neural recording could be deep. From these recordings, detailed predictions tin be made about private, intimate aspects of a person. For those with access to it, this data will be a valuable asset. Facebook's intended brain–computer interface, permitting seamless user interfaces with their systems would not only record and process encephalon signals, but acquaintance the information derived from them with detailed social media activeness (Robertson 2019). This would correspond a valuable resources, providing rich links between overt actions and hitherto hidden brain activity. This kind of detailed neuroprofiling will likely be taken to be equally unvarnished and intimate an insight into a person as it is possible to acquire. To the extent that this is authentic, new dimensions of understanding people through their brains might be opened. Every bit with the political micro-targeting scandals involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, this data can likewise enable personal manipulation, every bit well as social and political damage (Cadwalladr and Graham-Harrison 2018).

At the personal level, databases that associate not merely behavioural, but also encephalon data, represent serious risks for privacy and wider dimensions relating to dignity. The kinds of profiling they would enable would chance marginalising individuals and groups, while eroding solidarities among diverse groups. This happened in the run upwards to Brexit, based in covert psychometric profiling, and has had lasting social damage (Collins et al. 2019; Del Vicario et al. 2017; Howard and Kollanyi 2016). Targeting information at specific individuals or groups based the neural data would represent a new front in data-driven marketing or political campaigning, enabling novel, more than sinister, and perhaps harder to deflect, forms of manipulation (Ienca et al. 2018; Kellmeyer 2018).

These examples focus upon how data can exist leveraged for specific effects. Where neuroprofiling converges with advancing technology, direct neural-based manipulation also arises as a potential concern. Amongst the types of neurotechnology already available for research and for consumer purposes are those that use brain data to control software and hardware, those that display information for user'south purposes as neurofeedback, and those that seek to modify brain activity itself. These neurostimulation or neuromodulation devices apply data derived from the encephalon to attune subsequent brain action, regulating it co-ordinate to some desired state (Steinert and Friedrich 2019). This is quite a clear challenge to autonomy. Outside of an ethically regulated context such equally that of a academy research lab, this ought not to be taken lightly. Market forces are non self-evidently sufficient for ensuring the responsible marketing, and use, of such potentially powerful devices.

The kinds of concerns being discussed here are not based in mind-reading per se, but rather in effects likely to occur in the context of widespread neurotechnology apply. Beyond the market context however, in the realm of ongoing enquiry, at least 1 sort of mind-reading might appear to be technically possible in a limited sense at least. Following analysis of this case, we will be well placed to take a position on the upstanding concerns that have arisen across a variety of applications from those where mind-reading is not the central effect to one in which it would exist almost likely.

Speech Neuroprosthesis equally a Heed-Reading Device

A first impression might exist that 'idea', to the extent that thought tin can be 'in words', is substantially linguistic. While all thought is not necessarily something exact: images, sounds, smells, etc. tin can be brought to mind as well, significant dimensions of idea such as internal monologue, or inner voice communication are readily conceivable equally thinking in words (Perrone-Bertolotti et al. 2014).

This does not audio so far abroad from some of the caption of human being consciousness provided by Dennett (1993). On his account, augmentations upon abilities and instincts evident in many brute species are at least partly realised in human beings through linguistically borne 'microhabits of idea'. For Dennett, this is what turns a brain into a mind. If linguistic communication plays these kinds of roles, perhaps even being constitutive of minds equally we know them equally Dennett appears to suggest, 'inner', 'silent', or 'covert' voice communication may be very close to mental contents. What'south more, these kinds of non-externalised voice communication signals tin be recorded from the brain. In the recording of covert speech, there is some prima facie possibility of technology-mediated thought-reading.

Whereas in natural speech, the song cords create a vibration that is modified by the vocal tract to create a word (or phoneme, or syllable), a neural-based speech processor takes every bit input neural signals, applies a modifying role, and creates a new signal as output. Such systems record the neural signals associated with vividly imagined, but unverbalised speech communication, and translates these signals into intelligible voice communication without whatever need of peripheral nerves or muscles activation. Currently, several strategies have been investigated to define what is the best speech representation to be decoded to target this type of speech communication interface.

1 strategy is to classify the neural activeness into a finite number of choices. Several studies have shown the feasibility to decode discrete units of speech communication, such every bit phonemes (Brumberg et al. 2011; Ikeda et al. 2014; Pei et al. 2011) or words (Martin et al. 2016), during covert speech.

If every mental land correlates with, or is realised by, a neural mechanism, and so reading signals from the brain ought to let access to mental states, including covert voice communication states. Covert speech seems a contentful medium, and 1 that actually could be decoded in a mind-reading scenario. In terms of enquiry-grade neurotechnology, in the context of controlled conditions, devices that are triggered by covert speech action could be triggered by mentalised oral communication not intended for externalisation (Bocquelet et al. 2016). Considering further decoding techniques, specially the use of bogus neural nets, this could farther be compounded every bit neural activity associated with types of covert speech communication action might be discerned in a mode that bypasses the user's intentions.

Building software that directly maps the neural activeness to any voice communication representation remains difficult due to the lack of whatever measurable behavioural output during covert speech, even so. An alternative solution is based on the fact that imagined, covert speech, has features like those associated with the neural correlates of overt speech (Bocquelet et al. 2016; Chakrabarti et al. 2015). As such, it becomes possible to build a decoding model from an overt speech condition, and and then apply this decoder in the covert speech condition to reconstruct acoustic voice communication features (Martin et al. 2014). Studies demonstrate the feasibility to decode basic spoken communication features from neural signals during covert spoken language, merely likewise emphasize the difficulty in extracting the patterns accurately. This illustrates how far we currently are from developing a sci-fi listen-reading device.

In principle, more brain signals than intended could be recorded in the kind of organization just outlined. From any recorded signal features of relevance must be extracted such that they create an appropriate source for the modifying function. Means of determining speech-relevant source signal features might include the use of machine learning, using probability functions for each phoneme in a given linguistic communication (Amodei et al. 2016; Hinton et al. 2012). This kind of approach would recognise language-relevant neural signals in terms of a mapping betwixt neural signal and likely phonetic correlates.

Recalling the relations between thought and spoken communication it seems possible that a too-sensitive speech device, based in covert speech, could externalise some parts of a person'southward internal monologue. In some sense at least, this could be a case of listen-reading, perhaps not every bit by and large represented in sci-fi, simply nonetheless an example of internal monologue being externalised past technical means. I of the main conceptual, technological, and ethical difficulties here is to distinguish the covert speech that should be externalized from that which should not.

What's more, with the inclusion of automobile learning, language models could exist integrated such that phonemes in a language could be predicted based on the model. This would mean that, too as brain signals, a language model also adds a predictive dimension to the spoken communication prosthesis system. In principle, the system could 'guess' the words to be spoken before the biosignals are realised that would coincide with the phonetic signal. The prediction could exist done well but, in being based on neural signals and model-based predictions, however occur in the absence of a determination to speak out loud. This could exist as if the system were speaking on the user's behalf, mayhap undertaking delegated action without express permission (Rainey 2018).

In any case of speech prediction, at that place could be the problem that the arrangement could externalise something not intended at all past the user, not as thought or equally speech communication. Even where a robust system of retraction was in identify, there would be a take a chance that erroneous spoken language was taken equally that of the user. This could amount to a challenge to their first-person authority.

And then, in terms of imagined speech, there is an obvious adventure in principle. The nature of the recording and decoding, in being triggered by covert speech, could conceivably result in more speech beingness externalised than expected or desired. This could be because of the way triggering works every bit based in encephalon signals and predictions from linguistic communication models, prior to witting decisions to deed (Glannon 2016, p. 11). This raises some prospect of thought-reading, based covert oral communication involuntarily captured by a brain point recording.

How Should These Ethical Issues be Treated?

User control over neurotechnologies would announced to be of great importance in mitigating the potential listen-reading risks to privacy, autonomy, bureau, and self-representation. A fine-grained ability for the user to select what exactly is output past such devices would be a good outset. Besides this, some power to retract actions mediated via brain controlled devices ought to be built in. This 'veto control' (Steinert et al. 2018) would allow for some practical distinction to be fabricated between brain recording-related disclosures to be considered deliberate or not. This might be most patently illustrated with reference to a speech device. In term of a speech neuroprosthesis, speech activeness and the output of involuntary or other proto-voice communication act elements (e.g. thinking things through verbally), ought to be strictly user-controllable. Speech that the user intends to broadcast verbally should exist clearly distinguishable from inner speech that the user does not want to circulate. The user ought to accept strict control over this distinction.

More than this, however, regulatory systems must exist put in identify to anticipate neurotechnology-specific issues. These volition include not only how neurotechnologies are presented, but likewise how they work, and what sorts of applications they ought to be circumscribed from. For instance, medical device regulation, and data protection regulation, are likely each deficient when information technology comes to consumer neurotechnologies (Allison et al. 2007; McStay and Urquhart 2019). Devices of that sort are non medical, notwithstanding they might operate on health-relative neural functions, and record and transmit health-relative information. The developers of encephalon technologies ought to, every bit role of their product or awarding evolution, maintain active links with policymakers in society that advisable regulation tin can exist framed.

To illustrate, information technology is probable that individual companies will drive much neurotechnology evolution, even in assistive applications. To some extent, some users will thereby exist relying upon those private companies in order to exist able to live a fuller life, whereas others volition utilize devices more recreationally. How assessments may exist made of this kind of stardom in activity, between those who cannot deed but for a device and those who merely cull so to act, represents a novel event. Policymaking will be required for scene-setting effectually the introduction of devices that introduce this stardom, highlighted by ethical analysis. This would be a useful, and ethically sensitive, ways of anticipating near-future problems in conjunction with technology development.

What Further Analysis is Needed?

The applied science to routinely, accurately, record all of the brain signals required to reconstruct something similar a stream of consciousness is not withal here. Nevertheless, neurotechnology is a burgeoning field, and techniques, materials, technologies, and theories are being refined at a stride. Anticipation of future developments ought to become live inquiry ethics focal points in neuroscience and related labs in guild to avoid a 'filibuster fallacy', as discussed in Mecacci and Haselager (2019).

Given the sorts of high stakes possibilities described here, we might do well in developing neurotechnologies to consider the benefits proposed applications will deliver. If we tin answer the question why do nosotros want this neurotechnology at present, we may have good reason to proceed. If we cannot, be may accept good reason to interruption. 'Nosotros' here will include a variety of actors, it should be noted. Asking and answering the question why will likely be a very widespread word, drawing upon a variety of expertise, social, political, legal, and ethical resources. That such a discourse is so complex ought in itself to indicate the pressing nature of questions surrounding neurotechnological advance.

Specifically in terms of the idea-reading voice communication neuroprosthetic instance discussed here, and other such assistive neurotechnologies, the question why is most clearly accountable. Where disability or disadvantage tin exist alleviated well with technology there is a strong case to exist made for its development. Ethical issues that practice arise cluster around the concept of control, in order to protect the volition of technology users. These concerns tin be mitigated by sensitivity constraints within the organisation, and veto control whereby a user can halt entirely the constructed speech communication emanating from their speech device. Conceptual analysis of the nature of responsibleness ought to be used to inform technological development in terms of device activation, control, and veto, in order to ensure voluntariness remains central in device use. These chronicle to device-centred concerns that may emerge. On a wider perspective, how outputs from devices are received past audiences, are dealt with in law and policy, and characteristic in social perspectives, requires some thought.

In relation to user control over neurotechnologies in general, developers should ensure that whatever BCI affords the user as much control as possible, with a focus on reliably distinguishing between intentional triggering and neural activity only sufficiently like it to crusade device activation. These kinds of ethical dimensions even the more than clear-cut example of neurotechnology for virtuous purposes, illustrate probable areas where subsequent problem could arise. Legal ramifications of devices not sufficiently and demonstrably in the command of users are likely to arise where ethical issues surrounding responsibility for engineering science-mediated action are not treated as the technology develops. Where a user relies upon their device, moreover, it will be vital that this somehow be taken into account in terms of the functioning of a device.

A farther area probable to require more ethical, and legal, assay volition be that of information. Neurotechnologies will operate on the basis of a lot of encephalon derived data. This is sensitive material, from which can be inferred a range of health and other personal information. Yet the relations between data and persons requires farther clarity (Rainey et al. 2019). In some senses, nosotros are our data, but to a substantial degree we are not, being merely represented past it in detail ways, relative to the purposes for which it was collected, the ways used toward that collection, the mode of storage, and then on. But how this works is a matter in need of argue, equally illustrated in issues surrounding the apply of Big Data (Bollier and Firestone 2010; Boyd and Crawford 2012).

At any rate, we ought not to proceed with neurotechnology developments that will raise information questions, and and then try to work it out. Too much potential risk of different kinds would attend that approach. Peculiarly where databases including brain derived data are already existence created, the very existence of such resource is a problem where no clear conceptualisation is set up for their nature. Data privacy is emerging every bit a commonage concern (Véliz 2019). Every bit the scientific discipline advances, it is through interdisciplinary discourse, highly reflexive and inclusive discussions that policy, legal, and social norms can be kept up to date. These technologies represent challenges to which we ought to answer in constructive ways in club that research and citizens alike be safeguarded.

References

• Akbari, H., Khalighinejad, B., Herrero, J., Mehta, A., & Mesgarani, North. (2018). Towards reconstructing intelligible voice communication from the man auditory cortex. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/350124.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Akst, J. (2013). Decoding dreams. The Scientist Magazine. https://world wide web.the-scientist.com/notebook/decoding-dreams-39990. Accessed 10 October 2018.

• Allison, B. Z., Wolpaw, East. W., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2007). Brain–figurer interface systems: Progress and prospects. Expert Review of Medical Devices, four(4), 463–474.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Amodei, D., Ananthanarayanan, S., Anubhai, R., Bai, J., Battenberg, East., Case, C., Casper, J., Catanzaro, B., Cheng, Q., Chen, G., Chen, J., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Chrzanowski, M., Coates, A., Diamos, Grand., Ding, G., Du, North., Elsen, East., et al. (2016). Deep oral communication 2: End-to-cease spoken communication recognition in English and Mandarin. In International briefing on machine learning (pp. 173–182). http://proceedings.mlr.printing/v48/amodei16.html. Accessed half-dozen Nov 2018.

• Bashashati, A., Fatourechi, M., Ward, R. K., & Birch, G. Due east. (2007). A survey of signal processing algorithms in brain–computer interfaces based on electrical brain signals. Journal of Neural Applied science, iv(2), R32. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/4/two/R03.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Bocquelet, F., Hueber, T., Girin, L., Savariaux, C., & Yvert, B. (2016). Existent-time command of an articulatory-based speech synthesizer for brain computer interfaces. PLoS Computational Biology, 12(11), e1005119. https://doi.org/ten.1371/periodical.pcbi.1005119.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Boire, R. 1000. (2001). On cognitive liberty. The Journal of Cognitive Liberties, 2(1), 7–22.

  Google Scholar

• Bollier, D., & Firestone, C. Thou. (2010). The hope and peril of big data (pp. ane–66). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute, Communications and Society Programme.

• Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(five), 662–679. https://doi.org/x.1080/1369118X.2012.678878.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Brumberg, J. S., et al. (2011). Classification of intended phoneme production from chronic intracortical microelectrode recordings in spoken language-motor cortex. Frontiers in Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2011.00065.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018). The Cambridge analytica files. The Guardian, 6–7. http://davelevy.info/Downloads/cabridgeananalyticafiles%20-theguardian_20180318.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2019.

• Chakrabarti, S., Sandberg, H. M., Brumberg, J. S., & Krusienski, D. J. (2015). Progress in speech decoding from the electrocorticogram. Biomedical Engineering Messages, 5(i), ten–21. https://doi.org/ten.1007/s13534-015-0175-1.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Chang, L., & Tsao, D. Y. (2017). The code for facial identity in the primate brain. Cell, 169(6), 1013–1028.e14. https://doi.org/x.1016/j.jail cell.2017.05.011.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Choudhury, S., & Slaby, J. (2016). Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience. New York: Wiley.

  Google Scholar

• Churchland, P. S. (1989). Neurophilosophy toward a unified science of the listen brain. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  Google Scholar

• Collins, D., Efford, C., Elliot, J., Farrelly, P., Hart, S., Knight, J., et al. (2019). Disinformation and 'false news' (Vol. viii, p. 111). London: The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

  Google Scholar

• Del Vicario, K., Zollo, F., Caldarelli, G., Scala, A., & Quattrociocchi, Westward. (2017). Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate. Social Networks, l, 6–16. https://doi.org/ten.1016/j.socnet.2017.02.002.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Dennett, D. C. (1993). Consciousness explained (New Ed ed.). London: Penguin.

  Google Scholar

• Eickhoff, Due south. B., & Langner, R. (2019). Neuroimaging-based prediction of mental traits: Road to utopia or Orwell? PLoS Biology, 17(xi), e3000497. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000497.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Farah, K. J., Smith, K. Eastward., Gawuga, C., Lindsell, D., & Foster, D. (2009). Encephalon imaging and brain privacy: A Realistic Business organisation? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(1), 119–127. https://doi.org/x.1162/jocn.2009.21010.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Farahany, Due north. (2018). When technology tin can read minds, how volition nosotros protect our privacy? https://www.ted.com/talks/nita_farahany_when_technology_can_read_minds_how_will_we_protect_our_privacy. Accessed 28 Nov 2018.

• Forrest, C. (2017). Facebook planning encephalon-to-text interface then you tin blazon with your thoughts. TechRepublic. https://world wide web.techrepublic.com/article/facebook-planning-brain-to-text-interface-and then-you lot-can-type-with-your-thoughts/.

• Glannon, Due west. (2016). Ethical bug in neuroprosthetics. Periodical of Neural Engineering, 13(ii), 021002. https://doi.org/ten.1088/1741-2560/xiii/2/021002.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Gnanayutham, P., & Adept, A. (2011). Disabled users accessing off-the-shelf software using a push interface. In Paper presented at reckoner science and data systems, seventh annual international conference. Athens.

• Haynes, J.-D., Sakai, M., Rees, G., Gilbert, S., Frith, C., & Passingham, R. E. (2007). Reading hidden intentions in the human brain. Electric current Biology, 17(4), 323–328.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Hinton, G., Deng, L., Yu, D., Dahl, G., Mohamed, A., Jaitly, N., et al. (2012). Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition: The shared views of four research groups. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29(six), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.2205597.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Howard, P. N., & Kollanyi, B. (2016). Bots, #Strongerin, and #Brexit: Computational propaganda during the Britain–EU plebiscite (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2798311). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2798311. Accessed 21 Mar 2019.

• Ienca, Grand., Haselager, P., & Emanuel, East. J. (2018). Brain leaks and consumer neurotechnology. Nature Biotechnology, 36, 805–810. https://doi.org/ten.1038/nbt.4240.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Ikeda, South., Shibata, T., Nakano, N., Okada, R., Tsuyuguchi, N., Ikeda, K., et al. (2014). Neural decoding of single vowels during covert articulation using electrocorticography. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00125.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Kapur, A., Kapur, Due south., & Maes, P. (2018). AlterEgo: A personalized clothing silent oral communication interface. In 23rd International conference on intelligent user interfaces (pp. 43–53).

• Kay, M. North., Naselaris, T., Prenger, R. J., & Gallant, J. L. (2008). Identifying natural images from human brain activity. Nature, 452(7185), 352–355. https://doi.org/ten.1038/nature06713.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Kellmeyer, P. (2018). Big brain data: On the responsible apply of brain data from clinical and consumer-directed neurotechnological devices. Neuroethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9371-10.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Martin, S., Brunner, P., Holdgraf, C., Heinze, H.-J., Crone, Due north. E., Rieger, J., et al. (2014). Decoding spectrotemporal features of overt and covert speech from the homo cortex. Frontiers in Neuroengineering, 7, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneng.2014.00014/total.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Martin, S., Brunner, P., Iturrate, I., Millán, J. R., Schalk, One thousand., Knight, R. T., et al. (2016). Word pair classification during imagined speech using straight brain recordings. Scientific Reports, half dozen, srep25803. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25803.

  Article  Google Scholar

• McStay, A., & Urquhart, 50. (2019). 'This time with feeling?' Assessing Eu information governance implications of out of domicile appraisal based emotional AI. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i10.9457.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Mecacci, Thousand., & Haselager, P. (2019). Identifying criteria for the evaluation of the implications of brain reading for mental privacy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(2), 443–461. https://doi.org/x.1007/s11948-017-0003-three.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Meegan, D. V. (2008). Neuroimaging techniques for memory detection: Scientific, ethical, and legal issues. The American Periodical of Bioethics, eight(one), 9–20. https://doi.org/ten.1080/15265160701842007.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Mégevand, P. (2014). Telepathy or a painstaking chat in morse code? Pierre Mégevand goes beyond the media hype. PLOS Neuroscience Community. http://blogs.plos.org/neuro/2014/09/08/telepathy-or-a-painstaking-conversation-in-morse-lawmaking-pierre-megevand-goes-beyond-the-media-hype/. Accessed sixteen Aug 2018.

• Pei, X., Barbour, D., Leuthardt, E. C., & Schalk, Yard. (2011). Decoding vowels and consonants in spoken and imagined words using electrocorticographic signals in humans. Journal of Neural Engineering science, 8(4), 046028. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/8/four/046028.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Rapin, L., Lachaux, J.-P., Baciu, M., & Lœvenbruck, H. (2014). What is that picayune vocalization inside my head? Inner spoken communication phenomenology, its role in cerebral functioning, and its relation to self-monitoring. Behavioural Encephalon Inquiry, 261, 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.12.034.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Rainey, S. (2018). A steadying hand": Ascribing spoken communication acts to users of predictive speech assistive technologies. Journal of Law and Medicine, 26(1), 44–53.

  Google Scholar

• Rainey, S., Bublitz, J. C., Maslen, H., & Thornton, H. (2019). Data as a cross-cutting dimension of ethical importance in direct-to-consumer neurotechnologies. AJOB Neuroscience, 10(4), 180–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2019.1665134.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Revell, T. (2018). Mind-reading devices can now admission your thoughts and dreams using AI. New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931972-500-mind-reading-devices-can-now-access-your-thoughts-and-dreams-using-ai/. Accessed 16 October 2018.

• Robertson, A. (2019). Facebook but published an update on its futuristic brain-typing project. The Verge. https://world wide web.theverge.com/2019/7/xxx/20747483/facebook-ucsf-brain-computer-interface-typing-speech-recognition-experiment. Accessed 13 Aug 2019.

• Roelfsema, P. R., Denys, D., & Klink, P. C. (2018). Mind reading and writing: The hereafter of neurotechnology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 598–610.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Sani, O. M., Yang, Y., Lee, M. B., Dawes, H. Eastward., Chang, Eastward. F., & Shanechi, M. Thou. (2018). Mood variations decoded from multi-site intracranial homo brain action. Nature Biotechnology, 36(10), 954–961. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4200.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Sententia, W. (2006). Neuroethical considerations: Cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1013(1), 221–228. https://doi.org/x.1196/register.1305.014.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Solon, O. (2017). Facebook has threescore people working on how to read your mind. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/19/facebook-mind-reading-technology-f8. Accessed 14 Nov 2018.

• Steinert, Southward., Bublitz, C., Jox, R., & Friedrich, O. (2018). Doing things with thoughts: Brain–computer interfaces and disembodied bureau. Philosophy & Applied science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0308-4.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Steinert, Southward., & Friedrich, O. (2019). Wired emotions: Ethical problems of affective brain–computer interfaces. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/ten.1007/s11948-019-00087-ii.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Sulleyman, A. (2018). Mind-reading headset allowing people to control computers with their thoughts described in Microsoft patent. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland/life-mode/gadgets-and-tech/news/heed-reading-headset-calculator-control-thoughts-microsoft-patent-a8163976.html. Accessed 14 November 2018.

• Véliz, C. (2019). Privacy is a collective concern. https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/privacy/2019/10/privacy-collective-business. Accessed 23 Oct 2019.

• Wexler, A., & Thibault, R. (2018). Mind-reading or misleading? Assessing straight-to-consumer electroencephalography (EEG) devices marketed for wellness and their upstanding and regulatory implications. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0091-2.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Whyte, C. (2018). Listen-reading headset lets you Google just with your thoughts. New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23731723-300-listen-reading-headset-lets-you-google-but-with-your-thoughts/. Accessed 14 Nov 2018.

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (Grant No. 732032), Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (Grant No. #167836).

Author data

Affiliations

1. Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Academy of Oxford, Oxford, Britain

   Stephen Rainey

2. Department of Basic Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

   Stéphanie Martin, Andy Christen & Pierre Mégevand

3. Braintech Lab (U 1205), Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France

   Eric Fourneret

Corresponding writer

Correspondence to Stephen Rainey.

Additional information

Publisher'southward Notation

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This commodity is licensed under a Creative Eatables Attribution four.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were fabricated. The images or other tertiary party material in this article are included in the commodity'southward Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the fabric. If fabric is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted past statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, yous will need to obtain permission direct from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/past/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rainey, S., Martin, S., Christen, A. et al. Brain Recording, Mind-Reading, and Neurotechnology: Ethical Issues from Consumer Devices to Brain-Based Spoken communication Decoding. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 2295–2311 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00218-0

Download citation

• Received: 08 July 2019

• Accepted: 16 April 2020

• Published: 30 Apr 2020

• Result Date: August 2020

• DOI : https://doi.org/ten.1007/s11948-020-00218-0

Keywords

• Neuroethics
• Listen reading
• Neuroprosthetics
• Speech
• Linguistic communication
• Philosophy
• Neuroscience
• Neurotechnology

munsonplee1994.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-020-00218-0

Share this post