Poster No:
698
Submission Type:
Abstract Submission
Authors:
Fiona Furnari1, Haesoo Park2, Gideon Yaffe1, Michelle Hampson2
Institutions:
1Yale Law School, New Haven, CT, 2Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
First Author:
Co-Author(s):
Haesoo Park
Yale University School of Medicine
New Haven, CT
Introduction:
Today, we are witnessing rapid advancement of brain imaging technologies, not only in terms of their precision and our ability to characterize brain activities but also their accessibility. Now, one can easily order a device online that can track their brain activity as they go about their day, with the hope of making better decisions about their lives. But as with any technology, the development of brain imaging technologies and their utilization in our society will involve agents with their own economic and political motives, raising concerns regarding abuse of the technology. One brain imaging technology of particular concern is neurofeedback, a brain training technique based on feedback learning. Neurofeedback has the potential to relieve symptoms for various clinical populations and improve mental functions for healthy populations. However, recent studies suggest that it also has the potential to be abused. Studies have demonstrated that it can change people's facial preferences and mental associations covertly, rendering it a potentially dangerous tool for manipulating people's decision-making processes. While neurofeedback technology continues to evolve and become more accessible, it is important to examine, evaluate, and extend as needed, the legal framework for regulating its influence. Here, we describe a collaboration between neurofeedback researchers from Yale School of Medicine and members of the Yale Law School that aimed to begin this effort.1
Methods:
1. Literature review of neurofeedback experiments that clarify the potential of neurofeedback for manipulating the decision-making processes of individuals.
2. Examine existing legal frameworks in the United States to identify possible avenues for regulating neurofeedback influence.
3. Consider what is needed, both scientifically, and in terms of political action, to guide the development of effective regulation that protects society without infringing unnecessarily on individual freedoms.
Results:
1. Neurofeedback learning has three key characteristics that are relevant to this discussion. One, neurofeedback can target and manipulate specific mental functions. Two, neurofeedback influence can be achieved covertly or without the awareness of those who are affected. Three, research has shown neurofeedback influence to persist, inducing long-lasting effects on people. Beyond these three characteristics, we also discuss how neurofeedback technologies are evolving to become more accessible to a broader audience.
2. Disclaimer requirements in the political sphere, unfair and deceptive trade practice statutes, and undue influence laws are possible starting points for regulating neurofeedback influence. However, existing legal frameworks have problematic limitations, including a dependence on difficult judgements regarding when the influence of the technology becomes unacceptable.
3. To guide judgements regarding the influence of neurofeedback, we propose experiments to explore how critical parameters of neurofeedback design affect the magnitude of its influence. We also highlight the need for a more flexible and rapid system of regulatory development to address the social impacts of modern technology.
Conclusions:
Neurofeedback advancements are just one part of a much larger technological shift in neuro-technologies. Coupled with advancements in AI and exponentially growing accessibility to personal data, neuro-technologies will likely see rapid transformations in the coming years. We conclude that current regulatory frameworks are likely insufficient for protecting the public and that responding reactively to changes will not be sufficient. Technological transformations are ever more rapid, and their consequences are often irreversible. We must begin conversations now and educate the public regarding novel neuro-technologies, risks to their cognitive liberty in the face of these technologies, and gaps in the existing regulatory frameworks that may prove problematic.
Education, History and Social Aspects of Brain Imaging:
Education, History and Social Aspects of Brain Imaging 1
Learning and Memory:
Neural Plasticity and Recovery of Function 2
Learning and Memory Other
Modeling and Analysis Methods:
Other Methods
Keywords:
Other - neurofeedback; technology regulations; law
1|2Indicates the priority used for review
Provide references using author date format
1. Furnari, F. (2023), 'Neurofeedback: Potential for Abuse and Regulatory Frameworks in the United States', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, (under review)