Edited by: Jason Scott Metcalfe, Humans in Complex Systems, United States
Reviewed by: Sung Won Lee, University of Arizona, United States
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Novel wearable neurotechnology is able to provide insight into its wearer's cognitive processes and offers ways to change or enhance their capacities. Moreover, it offers the promise of hands-free device control. These brain-computer interfaces are likely to become an everyday technology in the near future, due to their increasing accessibility and affordability. We, therefore, must anticipate their impact, not only on society and individuals broadly but also more specifically on sectors such as traffic and transport. In an economy where attention is increasingly becoming a scarce good, these innovations may present both opportunities and challenges for daily activities that require focus, such as driving and cycling. Here, we argue that their development carries a dual risk. Firstly, BCI-based devices may match or further increase the intensity of cognitive human-technology interaction over the current hands-free communication devices which, despite being widely accepted, are well-known for introducing a significant amount of cognitive load and distraction. Secondly, BCI-based devices will be typically harder than hands-free devices to both visually detect (e.g., how can law enforcement check when these extremely small and well-integrated devices are used?) and restrain in their use (e.g., how do we prevent users from using such neurotechnologies without breaching personal integrity and privacy?). Their use in traffic should be anticipated by researchers, engineers, and policymakers, in order to ensure the safety of all road users.
Recent developments in neuroscience and engineering are making brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) increasingly accessible and inexpensive for use outside of medical applications. Brain-computer interfaces allow indirect measurement of the neural activity of the user. Medical applications range from predicting the onset of epileptic attacks and speaking assistance for patients with locked-in syndrome. Outside the medical field, and progressively entering the consumer market, we see professional as well as recreational applications, examples being mediation guidance, social media and hands-free gaming (Hayden,
Before proceeding, we would like to address a possible criticism common in the ethics of technology. Ethicists are sometimes accused (and quite commonly by other ethicists) of artificially inflating a problem or, even worse, “concern-trolling.” We have seen that happening in neuroethics within the Deep Brain Stimulation debate (Erler,
Here, we will explore the potential risks associated with the use of BCIs in traffic as well as the challenges that regulation faces, starting the section with an overview of different types of commercially viable neurotechnologies.
Researchers have developed a multitude of techniques and devices to measure neural activity, of which some are likely to be used in commercial BCI devices. Among these, electroencephalography (EEG) has emerged as one of the most commonly used non-invasive brain-reading techniques and is one of the key contenders in the market of wearable neurotechnology. Although measuring only the activity of assemblies of neurons near the cortical surface, it is able to pick up signals on a sub-second timescale that are informative of key mental processes, such as attention and motor activity, and is both inexpensive and transportable (Rashid et al.,
To characterize types of brain-computer interfaces in the context of traffic use, we identify an important conceptual separation between
Active BCIs, in contrast, use intentionally generated neural signals to control another device, such as a mobile phone. A primary example is a “speller,” with which the user can type text simply by thinking about the words or spelling them mentally. Active BCIs could also be used to hands-free control in-vehicle systems like GPS, or personal devices. These systems may be used in combination with other devices like augmented reality glasses (Hayden,
The use of electronic devices in traffic is discouraged and regulated because they pose a serious distraction to drivers and significantly contribute to the number of accidents (WHO,
By reducing visual and motoric interference by devices that guide the driver's gaze away from the road, one might suspect that mind-controlled, hands-free devices are an extraordinary technological opportunity to reduce distraction-induced accidents. However, several works show that the elimination of visual and motoric interference does not does not fully offset the cognitive interference that a distractor may cause, and that novel hands-free devices present unique challenges of their own. Indeed, Strayer et al. (
Moreover, BCIs may come with their own particular challenges to the cognitive load of the driver, which can be anticipated. Tactile, auditory, or potentially even neural alerts from the wearable may be harder to ignore than a ringing phone. Indeed, it has been found that users respond quicker to wearable devices than to their mobile phones (He et al.,
The use and marketing of active BCIs in traffic may be accompanied by the conviction that it may increase the ease of vehicle control, reducing visual-manual distractions (Louveton et al.,
Active BCI-controlled hands-free devices are not explicitly included in policies concerning the use of electronic devices in traffic, while their use, as argued above, may significantly increase cognitive load and pose a distraction from driving while their use is visually undetectable. In many countries, the law on the use of mobile devices in transportation vehicles states that drivers are no longer allowed to hold an electronic mobile device used for communication or information processing while driving (WHO,
First, there is a semantic problem: when does one “use” or “hold” a device? For example, wearing a smartwatch is not thought of as holding a device, although the device can be viewed and operated similarly to a handheld phone. In the case of BCIs, they are non-motoric in nature but their use and the extent to which they cause distraction may be similar to handheld or other motoric controls, and may also make use of visual feedback. This points to an issue relating to regulation, which must find metrics, other than whether a device causes visual-motoric competition, to determine the bounds of safe secondary cognitive load.
Second, there is a detection problem: currently, observing if someone is holding or operating their device while driving is quite straightforward. Law enforcement officers can with relative ease visually assess a situation and proceed to further investigation, i.e., inviting the driver to pull off, where needed. Moreover, detecting usage is not only important to law enforcement, but also for road users to assess and predict the driving behavior of the BCI user and make safety judgements. As commercial wearable BCIs become smaller, visual assessment may become harder and harder. In combination with other interfaces such as augmented reality glasses, we can expect people to be in intense cognitive interaction with technology without showing obvious behavioral signs. Where hands-free calling or speech-to-text technology already presents a detection problem, as the only visible behavioral sign is the user talking, an active BCI user might show no visible signs whatsoever of their intense mental engagement.
Third, and last, we have to consider how intimately connected to a user a BCI system could become. Regulating these technologies might require law enforcement to violate a user's personal space to simply search for the presence of a device, which will be increasingly aggravated when using implanted technologies. Monitoring by law enforcement may, given the above-mentioned detection problem, lead to physical or digital breaches of the user's privacy. This may ultimately lead to the violation of fundamental rights (Mecacci and Haselager,
Although there has been growing interest in expanding the policies to generally prohibit the operation of devices in several countries, this is generally not yet the case, because it would also exclude the operation of navigation devices and similar relevant tasks. To our knowledge, BCIs are nowhere explicitly included in traffic legislation yet. Given their potential upcoming use, and their peculiar features, we find it necessary to raise awareness of the novel possibilities that those may introduce. The problems we stated above can only be addressed through timely technical and institutional design solutions.
In this article, we argue that the use of active brain-computer interfaces in traffic may potentially be harmful, and thus warrants consideration not only by researchers and engineers, but policymakers too. The use of active BCIs by road users is likely to result in levels of cognitive distraction that are comparable to or worse than other hands-free alternatives, and the regulation of their use in traffic may prove to be challenging.
The impact of the inclusion of these devices in the daily lives of people is challenging to predict. Therefore, it is recommended to research both the benefits and disadvantages of the use of BCIs in traffic and keep an open mind toward technological innovation in the coming decade(s). Since the initial use of BCIs is primarily in the medical domain as an aid for those with a disability, it is important to nuance the warning and not stigmatize the use of active BCIs. In the context of road use, these devices have the potential to greatly benefit individuals with disabilities and help them regain their independence (Audi,
One step to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be for future research to look into quantifications of cognitive distraction and accurately compare different ways of operating various devices with BCIs, voice, and other modalities. In particular, we observe a gap in the literature; while we find resources that present distractors while operating the BCI is the primary task, it is necessary to quantify mental load in paradigms wherein multitasking the BCI operation is the distractor from another primary task as well. This way, more exact tradeoffs can be assessed. Stimulating companies that develop BCIs to take traffic safety into account, the devices they develop could for example be equipped with a “driver mode” (akin to “airplane mode”) that motivates the driver to disable the active BCI, whilst simultaneously allowing the passive BCI to measure and guide their attention and alert them when they become distracted or drowsy.
As we anticipate the growing use of brain-computer interfaces in commercial settings for e.g., cognitive enhancement, communication, and gaming, we also expect their usage in everyday life and the context of traffic. Contrary to the intuition that BCIs may offer a less distracting alternative to other devices due to reduced visuomotor distraction, our analysis indicates that the use of active BCIs while driving may pose a similar or worse cognitive distraction compared to other hands-free devices. This is particularly concerning because the user may not display any behavioral signs of distraction, making it challenging to observe and regulate. As of yet, we find there is no adequate quantification of how BCIs and hands-free devices compare in this setting. While BCIs have considerable positive applications, it is crucial to evaluate their impact on the attention economy and transportation. Doing so could prevent accidents and promote the responsible and mindful use of neurotechnology.
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
VB wrote the manuscript with input from GM. Both authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.
We acknowledge support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the Open Access Publishing Fund of Osnabrück University.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.