BCIs and Privacy of Thought Implications

Loyola philosophy professor Joe Vukov discussed the neuroscientific uses and ethics of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) with our class. BCIs are essentially systems that allow communication between the brain and some external technology. Vukov mentioned the difference between closed-loop and open-loop BCIs. Open-loop BCIs read brain signals and then turn those signals into actions. Closed-loop BCIs act on the brain by the same mechanism, but they also send feedback back to the brain in order to constantly adapt the system to better understand what each brain signal means. 

One example of a closed-loop BCI is the one used in our background article: "Brain-Responsive Neurostimulation for Loss of Control Eating: Early Feasibility Study." The article explores a new technique for reducing binge eating in obese patients. The study's procedure involves bilateral electrode implants into the NAc that will be stimulated during electrophysiological signals of LOC eating. The goal is to reduce LOC-related eating by stimulating the NAc. When a pattern of NAc activity becomes associated with LOC eating, the BCI learns to stimulate that same region again. In doing so, the BCI hinders brain activity that would cause binge-eating behavior. 

One major ethical concern we discussed was that BCIs may harm privacy of thought. BCIs are involved in translating thoughts into “spoken” word work by determining the neural activity associated with certain thoughts. This could be especially helpful in cases where people cannot communicate due to paralysis. However, it may be difficult for BCIs to determine exactly which thoughts are personal ones and which ones are intended to be spoken. This creates an ethical dilemma in which one’s private thoughts may be collected as data. I found it particularly interesting that Vukov said the way we think may affect a BCI’s ability to distinguish between private thoughts and thoughts that are intended to be spoken. The majority of people have an internal monologue where their thoughts are “heard” in words. A minority of people, though, do not have words in their internal monologue. For this minority, the brain signals associated with private thoughts versus thoughts to be spoken are more variant, making it easier for BCIs to determine the difference. I would be interested to hear how the IRB can adapt to ensure that all participants involved in experimental BCI use can keep their cognitive liberty.

Wu, H., et al. (2020). Brain-Responsive Neurostimulation for Loss of Control Eating: Early Feasibility Study. Neurosurgery, 87(6), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyaa300 

https://morebrainpoints.blogspot.com/2026/04/bcis-and-privacy-of-thought-implications.html