Search

The capacity of next-generation closed-loop or adaptive deep brain stimulation devices (aDBS) to read (measure neural activity) and write (stimulate brain regions or circuits) shows great potential to effectively manage movement, seizure, and psychiatric disorders, and also raises the possibility of using aDBS to electively (non-therapeutically) modulate mood, cognition, and prosociality. What separates aDBS from most neurotechnologies (e.g. transcranial stimulation) currently used for enhancement is that aDBS remains an invasive, surgically-implanted technology with a risk-benefit ratio significantly different when applied to diseased versus non-diseased individuals. Despite a large discourse about the ethics of enhancement, no empirical studies yet examine perspectives on enhancement from within the aDBS research community. We interviewed 23 aDBS researchers about their attitudes toward expanding aDBS use for enhancement. A thematic content analysis revealed that researchers share ethical concerns related to (1) safety and security; (2) enhancement as unnecessary, unnatural or aberrant; and (3) fairness, equality, and distributive justice. Most (70%) researchers felt that enhancement applications for DBS will eventually be technically feasible and that attempts to develop such applications for DBS are already happening (particularly for military purposes). However, researchers unanimously (100%) felt that DBS ideally should not be considered for enhancement until researchers better understand brain target localization and functioning. While many researchers acknowledged controversies highlighted by scholars and ethicists, such as potential impacts on personhood, authenticity, autonomy and privacy, their ethical concerns reflect considerations of both gravity and perceived near-term likelihood.

We estimate that 208,000 deep brain stimulation (DBS) devices have been implanted to address neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders worldwide. DBS Think Tank presenters pooled data and determined that DBS expanded in its scope and has been applied to multiple brain disorders in an effort to modulate neural circuitry. The DBS Think Tank was founded in 2012 providing a space where clinicians, engineers, researchers from industry and academia discuss current and emerging DBS technologies and logistical and ethical issues facing the field. The emphasis is on cutting edge research and collaboration aimed to advance the DBS field. The Eighth Annual DBS Think Tank was held virtually on September 1 and 2, 2020 (Zoom Video Communications) due to restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The meeting focused on advances in: (1) optogenetics as a tool for comprehending neurobiology of diseases and on optogenetically-inspired DBS, (2) cutting edge of emerging DBS technologies, (3) ethical issues affecting DBS research and access to care, (4) neuromodulatory approaches for depression, (5) advancing novel hardware, software and imaging methodologies, (6) use of neurophysiological signals in adaptive neurostimulation, and (7) use of more advanced technologies to improve DBS clinical outcomes. There were 178 attendees who participated in a DBS Think Tank survey, which revealed the expansion of DBS into several indications such as obesity, post-traumatic stress disorder, addiction and Alzheimer’s disease. This proceedings summarizes the advances discussed at the Eighth Annual DBS Think Tank.

The annual deep brain stimulation (DBS) Think Tank aims to create an opportunity for a multidisciplinary discussion in the field of neuromodulation to examine developments, opportunities and challenges in the field. The proceedings of the Sixth Annual Think Tank recapitulate progress in applications of neurotechnology, neurophysiology, and emerging techniques for the treatment of a range of psychiatric and neurological conditions including Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor, Tourette syndrome, epilepsy, cognitive disorders, and addiction. Each section of this overview provides insight about the understanding of neuromodulation for specific disease and discusses current challenges and future directions. This year’s report addresses key issues in implementing advanced neurophysiological techniques, evolving use of novel modulation techniques to deliver DBS, ans improved neuroimaging techniques. The proceedings also offer insights into the new era of brain network neuromodulation and connectomic DBS to define and target dysfunctional brain networks. The proceedings also focused on innovations in applications and understanding of adaptive DBS (closed-loop systems), the use and applications of optogenetics in the field of neurostimulation and the need to develop databases for DBS indications. Finally, updates on neuroethical, legal, social, and policy issues relevant to DBS research are discussed.

Background: There has been substantial controversy in the neuroethics literature regarding the extent to which deep brain stimulation (DBS) impacts dimensions of personality, mood, and behavior.Objective/Hypothesis: Despite extensive debate in the theoretical literature, there remains a paucity of empirical data available to support or refute claims related to the psychosocial changes following DBS. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used to examine the perspectives of patients who underwent DBS regarding changes to their personality, authenticity, autonomy, risk-taking, and overall quality of life. Results: Patients (n = 21) who were enrolled in adaptive DBS trials for Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, obsessive-compulsive disorder, Tourette's syndrome, or dystonia participated. Qualitative data revealed that participants, in general, reported positive experiences with alterations in what was described as ‘personality, mood, and behavior changes.’ The majority of participants reported increases in quality of life. No participants reported ‘regretting the decision to undergo DBS.’ Conclusion(s): The findings from this patient sample do not support the narrative that DBS results in substantial adverse changes to dimensions of personality, mood, and behavior. Changes reported as “negative” or “undesired” were few in number, and transient in nature.

The Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) Think Tank XI was held on August 9–11, 2023 in Gainesville, Florida with the theme of “Pushing the Forefront of Neuromodulation”. The keynote speaker was Dr. Nico Dosenbach from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. He presented his research recently published in Nature inn a collaboration with Dr. Evan Gordon to identify and characterize the somato-cognitive action network (SCAN), which has redefined the motor homunculus and has led to new hypotheses about the integrative networks underpinning therapeutic DBS. The DBS Think Tank was founded in 2012 and provides an open platform where clinicians, engineers, and researchers (from industry and academia) can freely discuss current and emerging DBS technologies, as well as logistical and ethical issues facing the field. The group estimated that globally more than 263,000 DBS devices have been implanted for neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. This year's meeting was focused on advances in the following areas: cutting-edge translational neuromodulation, cutting-edge physiology, advances in neuromodulation from Europe and Asia, neuroethical dilemmas, artificial intelligence and computational modeling, time scales in DBS for mood disorders, and advances in future neuromodulation devices.

BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-based computer perception technologies (e.g., digital phenotyping and affective computing) promise to transform clinical approaches to personalized care in psychiatry and beyond by offering more objective measures of emotional states and behavior, enabling precision treatment, diagnosis, and symptom monitoring. At the same time, passive and continuous nature by which they often collect data from patients in non-clinical settings raises ethical issues related to privacy and self-determination. Little is known about how such concerns may be exacerbated by the integration of neural data, as parallel advances in computer perception, AI, and neurotechnology enable new insights into subjective states. Here, we present findings from a multi-site NCATS-funded study of ethical considerations for translating computer perception into clinical care and contextualize them within the neuroethics and neurorights literatures.MethodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with patients (n = 20), caregivers (n = 20), clinicians (n = 12), developers (n = 12), and clinician developers (n = 2) regarding their perspective toward using PC in clinical care. Transcripts were analyzed in MAXQDA using Thematic Content Analysis.ResultsStakeholder groups voiced concerns related to (1) perceived invasiveness of passive and continuous data collection in private settings; (2) data protection and security and the potential for negative downstream/future impacts on patients of unintended disclosure; and (3) ethical issues related to patients’ limited versus hyper awareness of passive and continuous data collection and monitoring. Clinicians and developers highlighted that these concerns may be exacerbated by the integration of neural data with other computer perception data.DiscussionOur findings suggest that the integration of neurotechnologies with existing computer perception technologies raises novel concerns around dignity-related and other harms (e.g., stigma, discrimination) that stem from data security threats and the growing potential for reidentification of sensitive data. Further, our findings suggest that patients’ awareness and preoccupation with feeling monitored via computer sensors ranges from hypo- to hyper-awareness, with either extreme accompanied by ethical concerns (consent vs. anxiety and preoccupation). These results highlight the need for systematic research into how best to implement these technologies into clinical care in ways that reduce disruption, maximize patient benefits, and mitigate long-term risks associated with the passive collection of sensitive emotional, behavioral and neural data.

Background: Clinical trial participants who benefit from experimental neural devices for the treatment of debilitating and otherwise treatment-resistant conditions are generally not ensured continued access to effective therapy or maintenance of devices at the conclusion of trials.Objective/Hypothesis: Post-trial obligations have been extensively examined in the context of drug trials, but there has been little empirical examination of stakeholder perspectives regarding these obligations in the rapidly growing field of neural device research. Methods: This study examined the perspectives of 44 stakeholders (i.e., 23 researchers and 21 patient-participants) involved in implantable neural device trials. Results: Researchers were concerned about current post-trial management, identified barriers like cost, and suggested ways to improve the system. Many patient-participants were unaware of whether they would have post-trial access, but most thought they should keep devices if beneficial, and agreed with researchers that more should be done to help them keep and maintain these neural devices. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth examination of researcher perspectives regarding continued access to experimental neural devices and only the second such examination of patient-participant perspectives. These data can help inform future ethical and policy decisions about post-trial access to implantable neurotechnology.

Background: Refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) among adults is the first psychiatric indication of deep brain stimulation (DBS) to receive an FDA Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE). Given the HDE approval and encouraging evidence that has since emerged, exploration of DBS for OCD may expand to adolescents in the future. More than 100,000 adolescents in the U.S. suffer from refractory OCD, and there is already a precedent for the transition of DBS in adults to children in the case of dystonia. However, the risk-benefit analysis of pediatric DBS for OCD may be more complex and raise different ethical questions compared to pediatric DBS for dystonia. Objective: This study aimed to gain insight into pressing ethical issues related to using DBS in adolescents with OCD. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians (n = 25) caring for pediatric patients with refractory OCD. Interview transcripts were coded with MAXQDA 2018 software and analyzed using thematic content analysis to identify emergent themes. Results: Five central themes were identified in clinician responses, three of which were exacerbated in the pediatric DBS setting. Clinicians expressed concerns related to conditions of decision-making including adolescents' capacity to assent (80%), the lack of evidence about the outcomes and potential unknown effects of using DBS in adolescents with OCD (68%), and the importance of exhausting other treatment options before considering DBS (20%). Conclusions: Strategies to address clinician concerns include implementation of validated decision support tools and further research into the outcomes of pediatric DBS for OCD to establish clear guidelines for patient selection.

This research study provides patient and caregiver perspectives as to whether or not to undergo adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) research. A total of 51 interviews were conducted in a multi-site study including patients undergoing aDBS and their respective caregivers along with persons declining aDBS. Reasons highlighted for undergoing aDBS included hopes for symptom alleviation, declining quality of life, desirability of being in research, and altruism. The primary reasons for not undergoing aDBS issues were practical rather than specific to aDBS technology, although some persons highlighted a desire to not be the first to trial the new technology. These themes are discussed in the context of “push” factors wherein any form of surgical intervention is preferable to none and “pull” factors wherein opportunities to contribute to science combine with hopes and/or expectations for the alleviation of symptoms. We highlight the significance of study design in decision making. aDBS is an innovative technology and not a completely new technology. Many participants expressed value in being part of research as an important consideration. We suggest that there are important implications when comparing patient perspectives vs. theoretical perspectives on the choice for or against aDBS. Additionally, it will be important how we communicate with patients especially in reference to the complexity of study design. Ultimately, this study reveals that there are benefits and potential risks when choosing a research study that involves implantation of a medical device.

The expansion of research on deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) raises important neuroethics and policy questions related to data sharing. However, there has been little empirical research on the perspectives of experts developing these technologies. We conducted semi-structured, open-ended interviews with aDBS researchers regarding their data sharing practices and their perspectives on ethical and policy issues related to sharing. Researchers expressed support for and a commitment to sharing, with most saying that they were either sharing their data or would share in the future and that doing so was important for advancing the field. However, those who are sharing reported a variety of sharing partners, suggesting heterogeneity in sharing practices and lack of the broad sharing that would reflect principles of open science. Researchers described several concerns and barriers related to sharing, including privacy and confidentiality, the usability of shared data by others, ownership and control of data (including potential commercialization), and limited resources for sharing. They also suggested potential solutions to these challenges, including additional safeguards to address privacy issues, standardization and transparency in analysis to address issues of data usability, professional norms and heightened cooperation to address issues of ownership and control, and streamlining of data transmission to address resource limitations. Researchers also offered a range of views on the sensitivity of neural activity data (NAD) and data related to mental health in the context of sharing. These findings are an important input to deliberations by researchers, policymakers, neuroethicists, and other stakeholders as they navigate ethics and policy questions related to aDBS research.

Interest and investment in closed-loop or adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) systems have quickly expanded due to this neurotechnology’s potential to more safely and effectively treat refractory movement and psychiatric disorders compared to conventional DBS. A large neuroethics literature outlines potential ethical concerns about conventional DBS and aDBS systems. Few studies, however, have examined stakeholder perspectives about ethical issues in aDBS research and other next-generation DBS devices. To help fill this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with researchers involved in aDBS trials (n = 23) to gain insight into the most pressing ethical questions in aDBS research and any concerns about specific features of aDBS devices, including devices’ ability to measure brain activity, automatically adjust stimulation, and store neural data. Using thematic content analysis, we identified 8 central themes in researcher responses. The need to measure and store neural data for aDBS raised concerns among researchers about data privacy and security issues (noted by 91% of researchers), including the avoidance of unintended or unwanted third-party access to data. Researchers reflected on the risks and safety (83%) of aDBS due to the experimental nature of automatically modulating then observing stimulation effects outside a controlled clinical setting and in relation to need for surgical battery changes. Researchers also stressed the importance of ensuring informed consent and adequate patient understanding (74%). Concerns related to automaticity and device programming (65%) were discussed, including current uncertainties about biomarker validity. Additionally, researchers discussed the potential impacts of automatic stimulation on patients’ autonomy and control over stimulation (57%). Lastly, researchers discussed concerns related to patient selection (defining criteria for candidacy) (39%), challenges of ensuring post-trial access to care and device maintenance (39%), and potential effects on personality and identity (30%). To help address researcher concerns, we discuss the need to minimize cybersecurity vulnerabilities, advance biomarker validity, promote the balance of device control between patients and clinicians, and enhance ongoing informed consent. The findings from this study will help inform policies that will maximize the benefits and minimize potential harms of aDBS and other next-generation DBS devices.