Brain Computer Interfaces and Communication Disabilities: Ethical, Legal, and Social Aspects of Decoding Speech From the Brain

Jennifer A Chandler; Kiah I Van der Loos; Susan Boehnke; Jonas S Beaudry; Daniel Z Buchman; Judy Illes

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2022.841035

Brain Computer Interfaces and Communication Disabilities: Ethical, Legal, and Social Aspects of Decoding Speech From the Brain

Front Hum Neurosci. 2022 Apr 21:16:841035. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.841035. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Jennifer A Chandler¹, Kiah I Van der Loos², Susan Boehnke³, Jonas S Beaudry⁴, Daniel Z Buchman⁵, Judy Illes⁶

Affiliations

¹ Bertram Loeb Research Chair, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
² Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
³ Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
⁴ Institute for Health and Social Policy (IHSP) and Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
⁵ Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Krembil Research Institute, University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Toronto, ON, Canada.
⁶ Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Abstract

A brain-computer interface technology that can decode the neural signals associated with attempted but unarticulated speech could offer a future efficient means of communication for people with severe motor impairments. Recent demonstrations have validated this approach. Here we assume that it will be possible in future to decode imagined (i.e., attempted but unarticulated) speech in people with severe motor impairments, and we consider the characteristics that could maximize the social utility of a BCI for communication. As a social interaction, communication involves the needs and goals of both speaker and listener, particularly in contexts that have significant potential consequences. We explore three high-consequence legal situations in which neurally-decoded speech could have implications: Testimony, where decoded speech is used as evidence; Consent and Capacity, where it may be used as a means of agency and participation such as consent to medical treatment; and Harm, where such communications may be networked or may cause harm to others. We then illustrate how design choices might impact the social and legal acceptability of these technologies.

Keywords: AAC; BCI; augmentative and alternative communication; brain computer interface; communication; law; neuroethics.