Suppr超能文献

神经技术终端用户的责任归因范围。

The spectrum of responsibility ascription for end users of neurotechnologies.

作者信息

Schönau Andreas

机构信息

Department of Philosophy; Center for Neurotechnology, University of Washingtonm, Seattle, UNITED STATES.

出版信息

Neuroethics. 2021 Dec;14(3):423-435. doi: 10.1007/s12152-021-09460-0. Epub 2021 Feb 28.

Abstract

Invasive neural devices offer novel prospects for motor rehabilitation on different levels of agentive behavior. From a functional perspective, they interact with, support, or enable human intentional actions in such a way that movement capabilities are regained. However, when there is a technical malfunction resulting in an unintended movement, the complexity of the relationship between the end user and the device sometimes makes it difficult to determine who is responsible for the outcome - a circumstance that has been coined as "responsibility gap" in the literature. So far, recent accounts frame this issue around the theme of control but more work is needed to explore the complicated terrain of assigning responsibility for neural device-mediated actions from this control perspective. This paper aims at contributing to this tendency by offering more fine-grained distinctions of how that control capacity is facilitated by the machine and how it can be exercised by the end user. This results in a novel framework that depicts an in-depth exploration of the control aspect of responsibility in a way that incorporates the diversity of relationships between neurotechnologies, the various conditions they treat, and the individual end user's experience.

摘要

侵入性神经装置为不同层次的主动行为的运动康复提供了新的前景。从功能角度来看,它们以恢复运动能力的方式与人类的有意行动相互作用、提供支持或使之成为可能。然而,当出现技术故障导致意外运动时,终端用户与装置之间关系的复杂性有时会使确定谁应对该结果负责变得困难——这种情况在文献中被称为“责任缺口”。到目前为止,最近的论述围绕控制主题来阐述这个问题,但从这个控制角度探讨为神经装置介导的行动分配责任这一复杂领域还需要开展更多工作。本文旨在通过对机器如何促进控制能力以及终端用户如何行使该能力进行更细致的区分来推动这一趋势。这产生了一个新颖的框架,该框架以一种纳入神经技术之间关系的多样性、它们所治疗的各种病症以及个体终端用户体验的方式,对责任的控制方面进行了深入探索。

相似文献

1
The spectrum of responsibility ascription for end users of neurotechnologies.
Neuroethics. 2021 Dec;14(3):423-435. doi: 10.1007/s12152-021-09460-0. Epub 2021 Feb 28.
2
Mapping the Dimensions of Agency.
AJOB Neurosci. 2021 Apr-Sep;12(2-3):172-186. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2021.1896599. Epub 2021 Mar 25.
3
4
Recommendations for Responsible Development and Application of Neurotechnologies.
Neuroethics. 2021;14(3):365-386. doi: 10.1007/s12152-021-09468-6. Epub 2021 Apr 29.
5
When Thinking is Doing: Responsibility for BCI-Mediated Action.
AJOB Neurosci. 2020 Jan-Mar;11(1):46-58. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2019.1704918.
6
Control and Ownership of Neuroprosthetic Speech.
Philos Technol. 2021;34(3):425-445. doi: 10.1007/s13347-019-00389-0. Epub 2020 Jan 22.
7
Transferring brain-computer interfaces beyond the laboratory: successful application control for motor-disabled users.
Artif Intell Med. 2013 Oct;59(2):121-32. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2013.08.004. Epub 2013 Sep 13.
8
Keeping Disability in Mind: A Case Study in Implantable Brain-Computer Interface Research.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Apr;24(2):479-504. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9928-9. Epub 2017 Jun 22.
9
The present and future of neural interfaces.
Front Neurorobot. 2022 Oct 11;16:953968. doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2022.953968. eCollection 2022.
10
User-centered design in brain-computer interfaces-a case study.
Artif Intell Med. 2013 Oct;59(2):71-80. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2013.07.005. Epub 2013 Sep 13.

引用本文的文献

1
Understanding the Ethical Issues of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs): A Blessing or the Beginning of a Dystopian Future?
Cureus. 2024 Apr 14;16(4):e58243. doi: 10.7759/cureus.58243. eCollection 2024 Apr.
2
Neurotechnologies, Ethics, and the Limits of Free Will.
Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2024 Sep;58(3):894-907. doi: 10.1007/s12124-024-09830-2. Epub 2024 Feb 23.
3
Asking questions that matter - Question prompt lists as tools for improving the consent process for neurotechnology clinical trials.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2022 Jul 29;16:983226. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.983226. eCollection 2022.
4
Mapping the Dimensions of Agency.
AJOB Neurosci. 2021 Apr-Sep;12(2-3):172-186. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2021.1896599. Epub 2021 Mar 25.

本文引用的文献

1
When Thinking is Doing: Responsibility for BCI-Mediated Action.
AJOB Neurosci. 2020 Jan-Mar;11(1):46-58. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2019.1704918.
2
3
Artificial Intelligence, Responsibility Attribution, and a Relational Justification of Explainability.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Aug;26(4):2051-2068. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00146-8. Epub 2019 Oct 24.
4
Wired Emotions: Ethical Issues of Affective Brain-Computer Interfaces.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Feb;26(1):351-367. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00087-2. Epub 2019 Mar 13.
5
Legal liabilities of BCI-users: Responsibility gaps at the intersection of mind and machine?
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019 Jul-Aug;65:101399. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.10.002. Epub 2018 Nov 16.
6
Passive BCI beyond the lab: current trends and future directions.
Physiol Meas. 2018 Aug 29;39(8):08TR02. doi: 10.1088/1361-6579/aad57e.
8
The Effects of Closed-Loop Medical Devices on the Autonomy and Accountability of Persons and Systems.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2016 Oct;25(4):623-33. doi: 10.1017/S0963180116000359.
9
The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders' Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing.
Neuroethics. 2013;6(3):541-578. doi: 10.1007/s12152-011-9132-6. Epub 2011 Aug 17.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验