» Articles » PMID: 34722130

Control and Ownership of Neuroprosthetic Speech

Overview
Journal Philos Technol
Date 2021 Nov 1
PMID 34722130
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Implantable brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are being developed to restore speech capacity for those who are unable to speak. Patients with locked-in syndrome or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis could be able to use covert speech - vividly imagining saying something without actual vocalisation - to trigger neural controlled systems capable of synthesising speech. User control has been identified as particularly pressing for this type of BCI. The incorporation of machine learning and statistical language models into the decoding process introduces a contribution to (or 'shaping of') the output that is beyond the user's control. Whilst this type of 'shared control' of BCI action is not unique to speech BCIs, the automated shaping of what a user 'says' has a particularly acute ethical dimension, which may differ from parallel concerns surrounding automation in movement BCIs. This paper provides an analysis of the control afforded to the user of a speech BCI of the sort under development, as well as the relationships between , and the user's of the speech produced. Through comparing speech BCIs with BCIs for movement, we argue that, whilst goal selection is the more significant locus of control for the user of a movement BCI, control over process will be more significant for the user of the speech BCI. The design of the speech BCI may therefore have to trade off some possible efficiency gains afforded by automation in order to preserve sufficient guidance control necessary for users to express themselves in ways they prefer. We consider the implications for the speech BCI user's produced outputs and their token outputs. We argue that these are distinct assessments. Ownership of synthetic speech concerns whether the content of the output sufficiently represents the user, rather than their morally relevant, causal role in producing that output.

Citing Articles

Brain-computer Interaction in the Smart Era.

Yan Z, Liu P, Zhou H, Zhang J, Liu S, Xie Y Curr Med Sci. 2024; 44(6):1123-1131.

PMID: 39347924 DOI: 10.1007/s11596-024-2927-6.


Editorial: The ethics of speech ownership in the context of neural control of augmented assistive communication.

Freudenburg Z, Berezutskaya J, Herbert C Front Hum Neurosci. 2024; 18:1468938.

PMID: 39171098 PMC: 11337226. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1468938.


The ethical significance of user-control in AI-driven speech-BCIs: a narrative review.

van Stuijvenberg O, Samlal D, Vansteensel M, Broekman M, Jongsma K Front Hum Neurosci. 2024; 18:1420334.

PMID: 39006157 PMC: 11240287. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1420334.


Developer perspectives on the ethics of AI-driven neural implants: a qualitative study.

van Stuijvenberg O, Broekman M, Wolff S, Bredenoord A, Jongsma K Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):7880.

PMID: 38570593 PMC: 10991497. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-58535-4.


Recommendations for promoting user agency in the design of speech neuroprostheses.

Sankaran N, Moses D, Chiong W, Chang E Front Hum Neurosci. 2023; 17:1298129.

PMID: 37920562 PMC: 10619159. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1298129.


References
1.
Gilbert F, Cook M, OBrien T, Illes J . Embodiment and Estrangement: Results from a First-in-Human "Intelligent BCI" Trial. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017; 25(1):83-96. PMC: 6418065. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-0001-5. View

2.
Haselager P, Vlek R, Hill J, Nijboer F . A note on ethical aspects of BCI. Neural Netw. 2009; 22(9):1352-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2009.06.046. View

3.
Alderson-Day B, Fernyhough C . Inner Speech: Development, Cognitive Functions, Phenomenology, and Neurobiology. Psychol Bull. 2015; 141(5):931-65. PMC: 4538954. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000021. View

4.
Glannon W . Ethical issues with brain-computer interfaces. Front Syst Neurosci. 2014; 8:136. PMC: 4115612. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00136. View

5.
Kreitmair K . Commentary: Neuroprosthetic Speech: Pragmatics, Norms, and Self-Fashioning. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2019; 28(4):671-676. DOI: 10.1017/S0963180119000616. View