Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Published in: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Review

Proactive Ethical Design for Neuroengineering, Assistive and Rehabilitation Technologies: the Cybathlon Lesson

Authors: Marcello Ienca, Reto W. Kressig, Fabrice Jotterand, Bernice Elger

Published in: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Rapid advancements in rehabilitation science and the widespread application of engineering techniques are opening the prospect of a new phase of clinical and commercial maturity for Neuroengineering, Assistive and Rehabilitation Technologies (NARTs). As the field enters this new phase, there is an urgent need to address and anticipate the ethical implications associated with novel technological opportunities, clinical solutions, and social applications.

Main idea

In this paper we review possible approaches to the ethics of NART, and propose a framework for ethical design and development, which we call the Proactive Ethical Design (PED) framework.

Conclusion

A viable ethical framework for neuroengineering, assistive and rehabilitation technology should be characterized by the convergence of user-centered and value-sensitive approaches to product design through a proactive mode of ethical evaluation. We propose four basic normative requirements for the realization of this framework: minimization of power imbalances, compliance with biomedical ethics, translationality and social awareness. The aims and values of the CYBATHLON competition provide an operative model of this ethical framework and could drive an ethical shift in neuroengineering and rehabilitation.
Footnotes
1
See: http://​www.​resna.​org/​ (last accessed: 02/28/2017)
 
Literature
1.
2.
Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG, Haselkorn JK, Wittenberg GF, Federman DG, Ringer RJ, Wagner TH, Krebs HI, Volpe BT, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1772–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Klamroth-Marganska V, Blanco J, Campen K, Curt A, Dietz V, Ettlin T, Felder M, Fellinghauer B, Guidali M, Kollmar A, et al. Three-dimensional, task-specific robot therapy of the arm after stroke: a multicentre, parallel-group randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13:159–66.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Hung CS, Hsieh YW, CY W, Lin YT, Lin KC, Chen CL. The effects of combination of robot-assisted therapy with task-specific or impairment-oriented training on motor function and quality of life in chronic stroke. Pm r. 2016;8:721–9.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Moritz CT, Ruther P, Goering S, Stett A, Ball T, Burgard W, Chudler EH, Rao RP. New perspectives on Neuroengineering and Neurotechnologies: NSF-DFG workshop report. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2016;63:1354–67.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Goering S, Yuste R. On the necessity of ethical guidelines for novel Neurotechnologies. Cell. 2016;167:882–5.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Nijboer F, Plass-Oude Bos D, Blokland Y, van Wijk R, Farquhar J. Design requirements and potential target users for brain-computer interfaces–recommendations from rehabilitation professionals. Brain-Computer Interfaces. 2014;1:50–61.CrossRef
8.
Nijboer F. Technology transfer of brain-computer interfaces as assistive technology: barriers and opportunities. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;58:35–8.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Gallegos-Ayala G, Furdea A, Takano K, Ruf CA, Flor H, Birbaumer N. Brain communication in a completely locked-in patient using bedside near-infrared spectroscopy. Neurology. 2014;82:1930–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Loureiro RCV, Harwin WS, Nagai K, Johnson M. Advances in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: a technology push. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2011;49:1103.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ienca M, Haselager P. Hacking the brain: brain–computer interfacing technology and the ethics of neurosecurity. Ethics Inf Technol. 2016;18:117–29.CrossRef
12.
Bovolenta F, Sale P, Dall'Armi V, Clerici P, Franceschini M. Robot-aided therapy for upper limbs in patients with stroke-related lesions. Brief report of a clinical experience. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011;8:18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Ienca M, Jotterand F, Elger B, Caon M, Pappagallo AS, Kressig RW, Wangmo T. Intelligent assistive Technology for Alzheimer's disease and other dementias: a systematic review. J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;56:1301–40.
14.
Denning T, Matsuoka Y, Kohno T. Neurosecurity: security and privacy for neural devices. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;27:E7.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Bonaci T, Herron J, Matlack C, Chizeck HJ. Securing the exocortex: a twenty-first century cybernetics challenge. IEEE Technol Soc Mag. 2015;34:44–51.CrossRef
16.
Svensson G, Wood G. Proactive versus reactive business ethics performance: a conceptual framework of profile analysis and case illustrations. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in Society. 2004;4:18–33.CrossRef
17.
18.
Pavlish C, Brown-Saltzman K, Fine A, Jakel P. Making the call: a proactive ethics framework. In: HEC Forum. Springer; 2013. p. 269–83.
19.
Roeser S. Emotional engineers: toward morally responsible design. Sci Eng Ethics. 2012;18:103–15.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Bharucha AJ, Anand V, Forlizzi J, Dew MA, Reynolds CF, III, Stevens S, Wactlar H: Intelligent assistive technology applications to dementia care: current capabilities, limitations, and future challenges. Am J Geriatr Psychiatr 2009, 17:88–104.
21.
De Vito Dabbs A, Myers BA, Mc Curry KR, Dunbar-Jacob J, Hawkins RP, Begey A, Dew MA. User-centered design and interactive health Technologies for Patients. Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN. 2009;27:175.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Nature: Anticipating artificial intelligence. Nature 2016, 532:413–413.
23.
Kellmeyer P, Cochrane T, Mueller O, Mitchell C, Ball T, Fins JJ, Biller-Andorno N. The effects of closed-loop medical devices on the autonomy and accountability of persons and systems. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2016;25:623–33.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Albrechtslund A. Ethics and technology design. Ethics Inf Technol. 2007;9:63–72.CrossRef
25.
Meng Q, Lee MH. Design issues for assistive robotics for the elderly. Adv Eng Inform. 2006;20:171–86.CrossRef
26.
Markopoulos P, Timmermans AA, Beursgens L, Van Donselaar R, Seelen HA. Us' em: the user-centered design of a device for motivating stroke patients to use their impaired arm-hand in daily life activities. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBC, 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE IEEE. 2011:5182–7.
27.
Ienca M, Jotterand F, Vică C, Elger B. Social and assistive robotics in dementia care: ethical recommendations for research and practice. Int J Soc Robot. 2016;8:565–73.CrossRef
28.
Grott R: The challenges posed to our field by user-centered design principles. In RESNA; 2016.
29.
Milne C-P, Kaitin KI: Translational Medicine: An Engine of Change for Bringing New Technology to Community Health. Sci Transl Med 2009, 1:5cm5-5cm5.
30.
Mill JS. Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1861.
31.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. USA: Oxford University Press; 2001.
32.
Cardol M, Jong BD, Ward CD. On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:970–4.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Simpson JA, Weiner ES. The Oxford English dictionary: Vol. 1. In: Clarendon press; 1989.
34.
Friedman B, Kahn Jr PH. Human values, ethics, and design. In: The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies ad emerging applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 2003. p. 1177–201.
35.
van Wynsberghe A. Designing robots for care: care centered value-sensitive design. Sci Eng Ethics. 2013;19:407–33.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Borning A, Muller M. Next steps for value sensitive design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM; 2012. p. 1125–34.
37.
Manders-Huits N. What values in design? The challenge of incorporating moral values into design. Sci Eng Ethics. 2011;17:271–87.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Nathan LP, Friedman B, Klasnja P, Kane SK, Miller JK. Envisioning systemic effects on persons and society throughout interactive system design. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Designing interactive systems. ACM; 2008. p. 1–10.
39.
Moghimi S, Kushki A, Marie Guerguerian A, Chau T. A review of EEG-based brain-computer interfaces as access pathways for individuals with severe disabilities. Assist Technol. 2013;25:99–110.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Scherer MJ. Living in the state of stuck: how assistive technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities: Brookline Books; 2005.
41.
Nihlén Fahlquist J. The problem of many hands and responsibility as the virtue of care. In: Managing in Critical Times–Philosophical Responses to Organisational Turbulence St Anne's College, Oxford 23–26 July 2009. Reason in practice ltd.; 2009.
42.
Ekmekci PE, Oral M, Yurdakul ES. A qualitative evaluation of ethics educational program in health science. Med Law. 2015;34:217–28.PubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Schröder-Bäck P, Duncan P, Sherlaw W, Brall C, Czabanowska K. Teaching seven principles for public health ethics: towards a curriculum for a short course on ethics in public health programmes. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15:73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Iosa M, Morone G, Cherubini A, Paolucci S. The three Laws of Neurorobotics: a review on what neurorehabilitation robots should do for patients and clinicians. Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering. 2016;36:1–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Asimov I: I, robot Bantam Dell, New York 1950.
46.
ISO. Robotic devices–safety requirements for personal care robots. In: Standardization IOf ed; 2014.
47.
Morone G, Domenico De Angelis M, Coiro P, Pratesi L, Paolucci S. Driving electromechanically assisted gait trainer for people with stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48:135.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Verbeek P-P. Materializing morality: design ethics and technological mediation. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2006;31:361–80.CrossRef
49.
Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA. 2008;299:211–3.PubMed
50.
Juma C. Innovation and its enemies: why people resist new technologies: Oxford University Press; 2016.
51.
Lorence D, Richards M. Adoption of regulatory compliance programmes across United States healthcare organizations: a view of institutional disobedience. Health Serv Manag Res. 2003;16:167–78.CrossRef
52.
Smith A: US views of technology and the future. In Internet & Technology: Pew Research Center; 2014.
53.
Copley J, Ziviani J. Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occup Ther Int. 2004;11:229–43.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Herzlinger RE. Why innovation in health care is so hard. Harv Bus Rev. 2006;84:58.PubMed
55.
Poon EG, Blumenthal D, Jaggi T, Honour MM, Bates DW, Kaushal R. Overcoming barriers to adopting and implementing computerized physician order entry systems in US hospitals. Health Aff. 2004;23:184–90.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Proactive Ethical Design for Neuroengineering, Assistive and Rehabilitation Technologies: the Cybathlon Lesson
Authors
Marcello Ienca
Reto W. Kressig
Fabrice Jotterand
Bernice Elger
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1743-0003
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-017-0325-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

Locomotor circumvention strategies are altered by stroke: II. Postural Coordination

Review

Sensorimotor Learning: Neurocognitive Mechanisms and Individual Differences

Research

Balancing the playing field: collaborative gaming for physical training

Research

Restoration of motor control and proprioceptive and cutaneous sensation in humans with prior upper-limb amputation via multiple Utah Slanted Electrode Arrays (USEAs) implanted in residual peripheral arm nerves

Research

Inhibition of Parkinsonian tremor with cutaneous afferent evoked by transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation

Research

Adaptive hybrid robotic system for rehabilitation of reaching movement after a brain injury: a usability study