Scientists in all scientific fields are increasingly being asked and even required to consider the ethical implications of their work. When the human brain is involved, as in the field of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI), considering ethical issues takes on an even higher level of significance. When using or researching speech BCIs, in which there is direct neural control of augmented assistive communication (AAC), there is a need to consider unique ethical issues that arise from the inseparable relationship between the intended meaning of what a user wants to say and how the user working through the BCI says it. In order to determine a BCI user’s ownership of the content and meaning of the produced speech a good understanding is needed of the extent to which the BCI provides control over the following: if something is said ‘out loud’, what is said, how it is said, and endorsement of what is said.
The degree to which speech BCI systems allow the user to have direct, shared, or practically no control over each of the four aspects of speech control can and does vary per BCI system and control strategy. Advances in decoding brain activity can provide more control and advances in Natural language processing and speech synthesis can help to produce more legible speech. However, unless both the speaker and listener are fully aware of the level of control the BCI provides, a disconnect between the listeners’ attribution of the user’s responsibility for what they say and their actual responsibility can arise. For example, a speech BCI has the potential to put unwanted words into the mouth of the user or even produced intelligible speech from brain activity related to private inner speech. The main problem addressed by this research topic is the potential disconnect between what aspects of BCI speech a user is directly responsible for, feels responsible for, and is held responsible for by the listener. The goal of this research topic is to establish the views of the research community as to the extent of this problem and potential strategies to address this challenge both in practice and research settings.
We are interested in review and opinion articles addressing one of the following topics.
1. How big is the current and potential disconnect between what can be and what needs to be decoded from the cortex to provide acceptable speech control?
• What is the current state of speech-related neural decoding?
• What is the current state of the understanding of the processes of inner speech and speech production in the brain?
2. What are the risks and benefits of AI?
• What is the current and potential role of AI in speech BCIs?
• What do we know about language bias in computer-produced speech (Natural language processing)?
• What do we know about listener bias toward computer-produced speech (Human-Computer Interaction)?
Scientists in all scientific fields are increasingly being asked and even required to consider the ethical implications of their work. When the human brain is involved, as in the field of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI), considering ethical issues takes on an even higher level of significance. When using or researching speech BCIs, in which there is direct neural control of augmented assistive communication (AAC), there is a need to consider unique ethical issues that arise from the inseparable relationship between the intended meaning of what a user wants to say and how the user working through the BCI says it. In order to determine a BCI user’s ownership of the content and meaning of the produced speech a good understanding is needed of the extent to which the BCI provides control over the following: if something is said ‘out loud’, what is said, how it is said, and endorsement of what is said.
The degree to which speech BCI systems allow the user to have direct, shared, or practically no control over each of the four aspects of speech control can and does vary per BCI system and control strategy. Advances in decoding brain activity can provide more control and advances in Natural language processing and speech synthesis can help to produce more legible speech. However, unless both the speaker and listener are fully aware of the level of control the BCI provides, a disconnect between the listeners’ attribution of the user’s responsibility for what they say and their actual responsibility can arise. For example, a speech BCI has the potential to put unwanted words into the mouth of the user or even produced intelligible speech from brain activity related to private inner speech. The main problem addressed by this research topic is the potential disconnect between what aspects of BCI speech a user is directly responsible for, feels responsible for, and is held responsible for by the listener. The goal of this research topic is to establish the views of the research community as to the extent of this problem and potential strategies to address this challenge both in practice and research settings.
We are interested in review and opinion articles addressing one of the following topics.
1. How big is the current and potential disconnect between what can be and what needs to be decoded from the cortex to provide acceptable speech control?
• What is the current state of speech-related neural decoding?
• What is the current state of the understanding of the processes of inner speech and speech production in the brain?
2. What are the risks and benefits of AI?
• What is the current and potential role of AI in speech BCIs?
• What do we know about language bias in computer-produced speech (Natural language processing)?
• What do we know about listener bias toward computer-produced speech (Human-Computer Interaction)?
