Scholarlink

<p>Closed-loop (CL) neurotechnology, which dynamically adapts to patients’ neural states, offers new opportunities for treating neurological and psychiatric disorders. However, its real-time feedback mechanisms raise critical ethical challenges. This scoping review assesses whether and how clinical studies involving CL neurotechnologies address ethical concerns. We analyzed peer-reviewed research on human participants to evaluate both the presence and depth of ethical engagement. Despite the prominence of CL systems in neuroethical discourse, explicit ethical assessments remain rare. Ethical issues are typically addressed only implicitly, folded into technical or procedural discussions without structured analysis. Most notably, our findings reveal a persistent gap between regulatory compliance and meaningful ethical reflection. To address this, we propose empirically grounded, community-responsive recommendations to strengthen ethical oversight in this field. These recommendations aim to support governance frameworks that are context-sensitive, reflexive, and capable of addressing the complex ethical terrain introduced by adaptive neurotechnologies.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Ethical gaps in closed-loop neurotechnology: a scoping review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月8日

查看全文
  • Lea Haag,
  • Georg Starke,
  • Markus Ploner,
  • Marcello Ienca

摘要

Closed-loop (CL) neurotechnology, which dynamically adapts to patients’ neural states, offers new opportunities for treating neurological and psychiatric disorders. However, its real-time feedback mechanisms raise critical ethical challenges. This scoping review assesses whether and how clinical studies involving CL neurotechnologies address ethical concerns. We analyzed peer-reviewed research on human participants to evaluate both the presence and depth of ethical engagement. Despite the prominence of CL systems in neuroethical discourse, explicit ethical assessments remain rare. Ethical issues are typically addressed only implicitly, folded into technical or procedural discussions without structured analysis. Most notably, our findings reveal a persistent gap between regulatory compliance and meaningful ethical reflection. To address this, we propose empirically grounded, community-responsive recommendations to strengthen ethical oversight in this field. These recommendations aim to support governance frameworks that are context-sensitive, reflexive, and capable of addressing the complex ethical terrain introduced by adaptive neurotechnologies.