Editorial: Socio-legal, ethical, technical and medical considerations on neuroprivacy and brain-machine interaction technologies in the era of A.I.

1 Introduction

The rapid convergence of neurotechnology and artificial intelligence (AI) has moved beyond the isolation of clinical laboratories and IT factories to become a transformative force capable, in the long-term, of redefining the human experience. In the wake of brain-machine interaction technologies, human and cognitive enhancement and even transhumanism perspectives, this evolution has given rise to the concept of the hybrid mind, a state where biological cognitive systems merge seamlessly with artificial ones, blurring traditional boundaries of identity, agency, autonomy, and consciousness. While these advances offer unprecedented potential to restore sensory and motor functions, they simultaneously challenge our foundational understandings of cognitive liberty, mental integrity, neuroethics and conventional privacy paradigms. This Research Topic, hosted by Frontiers in Human Dynamics - Digital Impacts and cross-listed across seven participating journals, including Frontiers in Sociology, Neurology, and Neurorobotics, serves as a multidisciplinary research collection that aims to connect different fields and backgrounds with a common frame. It also archives the overall findings that emerged from the international conference “The Hybrid Mind: Ethics and Regulation of Intelligent Neuroprostheses”, that took place in October 2023 in Berlin, Germany. Under the stewardship of the editors spanning legal, ethical, medical, and IT backgrounds, the collection features the work of 39 authors, and reflects a rigorous selection process, resulting in a competitive acceptance rate of 46%. In terms of typology of scientific research, the contributions, from 3 reviews, 2 conceptual analyses and 1 study protocol to 3 perspectives and 2 original research papers, paint an articulated, yet still homogeneous spectrum of different research perspectives that pivot around the neuroprivacy topic. The impact of this collection is already evident from the numbers of citations, research topic views, article views, and article downloads.

2 The collection

The 11 articles in this collection can be organised into four thematic clusters (plus one focus) that reveal a productive tension between the drive for therapeutic “super-human” capabilities and the necessity of safeguarding the “most intimate personal corner”: the mind.

2.1 Clinical milestones and technical frontiers

The collection provides a firm grounding in current medical progress, establishing a baseline for the technical capabilities that now interact with the human mind. Deng et al. provide a comprehensive twenty-year bibliometric analysis of Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) for stroke rehabilitation, documenting a clear transition from basic pathophysiological research toward translational studies focused on neuroplasticity. Their findings highlight how non-invasive methods, such as transauricular VNS, are gaining traction as safer and more cost-effective alternatives to surgical intervention. Complementing this technical trajectory, Kim et al. present a double-blinded randomised control pilot trial protocol utilising the RecoveriX PRO system. Their work aims to verify that motor imagery-contingent neurofeedback is superior to sham feedback in subacute stroke rehabilitation, asserting that the closed-loop connection between intention and feedback is essential for the effective reorganisation of neural circuits. The trial aims to resolve a current research gap by directly comparing the superiority of “real BCI” (MI-contingent feedback) over “sham BCI” (MI-irrelevant feedback) specifically for patients in the subacute phase of stroke. The protocol uniquely combines clinical evaluations with neurophysiological tools like EEG (functional connectivity) and TMS (cortical excitability) to assess brain reorganization from the cerebral cortex down to the end-effector. Liang expands this technical scope into the aesthetic and cognitive realms, surveying how machine learning can decode and generate music based on emotional and cognitive states. The findings suggest that ML interpretations of “cognitive harmony” must account for complex cultural and individual variables, as a user's response to music is an interplay of cultural background and unique image-thinking processes. This research suggests a profound potential for AI to harmonise minds and machines through “picture-thinking” processes, essentially utilising music as a universal language to bridge the gap between human emotion and algorithmic interpretation. While these studies focus essentially on the medical fields, their findings also enable interlinked ethical and legal considerations to emerge precisely around new implications for neuroprivacy —especially concerning neuro-data protection— and cognitive liberties.

2.2 The neuralink paradigm and scientific transparency

A significant portion of the collection grapples with the high-profile entry of private entities into the neurotechnology sector, most notably represented by Neuralink. Lavazza et al. provide a critical conceptual analysis of Neuralink's brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), acknowledging technical milestones such as device miniaturisation and robotic implantation techniques. However, they raise a sharp “neuroskeptical alarm” concerning ethics aspects of neurotechnologies, as found in the Media, regarding the company's deviation from established scientific norms, specifically criticising the initial failure to register clinical trials in public databases like ClinicalTrials.gov., although the company never had the intention to be a public or academic project. Thus, it is not surprising that they do not adhere to these conventions. However, this lack of transparency undermines the ability of the scientific community to evaluate safety and efficacy, highlighting a dangerous precedent where technological enthusiasm may bypass the ethical accountability required for such intimate human-machine integrations. Indeed, the key finding is that Neuralink's practice of announcing progress via social media rather than peer-reviewed journals, and its initial failure to register its clinical trial, deviates from established scientific and ethical norms, undermining public trust and accountability. The article further highlights that Neuralink is unique because it explicitly aims to go beyond therapeutic restoration to “unlock human potential” in healthy individuals, which raises urgent questions about labour competition (an aspect precisely addressed by Muhl and Andorno), positional advantage, and the creation of “posthuman” entities.

2.3 Ethical and legal limits and the right to mental privacy

As neurodevices migrate from clinical settings to the consumer market, the collection identifies severe regulatory gaps and emerging threats to individual liberty. As mentioned, Muhl and Andorno explore the prospect of neurosurveillance in the workplace, arguing that employers using EEG-based devices to monitor fatigue could inadvertently gain access to subconscious processing over which individuals have no mindful control. They maintain that the inherent power imbalance in employment relationships makes “informed consent” a myth, as workers may feel coerced into monitoring to avoid professional detriment. Muhl explores further these positions, arguing that brain data should be legally classified as a special category of sensitive data. Because this data is often generated with no individual awareness both of the data generated or their processing by third parties, and contains information about health status (such as neurological disorders), it warrants the highest level of protection under GDPR. Wilkins et al. shift this concern to the regulatory level, identifying a critical lack of cybersecurity expertise within Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Current regulatory mechanisms focus heavily on pre-market safety but are inadequate for implantable BCIs, which may induce neural and personality changes that unfold over extended periods and require lifelong follow-up. The paper identifies severe cybersecurity risks unique to BCIs, such as “neuronal flooding” or “jamming”, where a hacker could maliciously perform “neuronal cyberattacks” to alter a user's behaviour, neural activity, and steal intimate personal information. They thus warn that the risk-benefit ratio of BCI research is becoming increasingly difficult to quantify. Kamenjasevic adds to this complexity by examining mood enhancement technology (mood HETs), noting that while legal systems are flexible, they lack a precise definition of “data concerning mood”, which may leave users vulnerable to workplace monitoring or political exploitation. He argues that such data must be recognised as a special category of personal data to prevent chilling effects on the freedom of thought and to ensure that enhancements are not used to label specific emotional states as unwanted or non-normal. The article clarifies that mood enhancement involves using technology to change affective states “above levels of normality” distinguishing mood as a long-lasting, private, and internal state compared to the more spontaneous and external nature of emotion. The author also advocates that HETs be prescribed by healthcare professionals who can monitor side effects and provide valid informed consent, rather than being sold as unregulated over-the-counter consumer products.

2.4 Sociological abolitionism and theoretical extensions

The collection further pushes the boundaries of neuroethics by proposing radical re-evaluations of the law and human ability. Borbón introduces the concept of neuro-abolitionism, suggesting that insights from neuroscience regarding the deterministic or truly random nature of behaviour undermine the traditional assumptions of free will that underpin retributive criminal law. He calls for the abolition of punitive models in favour of restorative justice paradigms that prioritise dignity and acknowledge that behaviour is often socially and culturally situated rather than purely neurobiological. The article contends that the current penal system focuses on holding individuals fully responsible while ignoring the systemic and structural social causes of crime (such as marginalisation and poverty), effectively making the state an accomplice to the conditions that produce deviant behaviour. Thus, the author provocatively proposes a long-term shift toward the total abolition of the prison system, advocating instead for humane alternatives like transdisciplinary understanding (neuroscience, criminology, and sociology), and strictly consensual therapeutic neuro-interventions that respect cognitive liberty. In a similarly visionary perspective, Dezso proposes the concept of “co-ability”, arguing that the potency of any physical entity - biological or artificial - is not inherent but is amplified through its distributed network relationships. She advocates for a shift from a “visuocentric” to a “motocentric” focus in perception, where tangible 3D-printed prototypes bridge the communicative gap between abstract information and human physical experience, moving toward the dissolution of human-centred norms, suggesting that sensemaking is most effective when it involves exploratory motor activities like touch and active engagement with the environment. The author argues for digital fabrication and rapid prototyping, which are used to bridge the gap between formless data and material reality, creating tangible media that allow for an action-oriented non-verbal dialog between humans and their data-saturated environments.

2.5 Focus: analysis of the hybrid mind conference summary

The Hybrid Mind conference summary, presented by Buthut et al., provides a vital synthesis of the 2023 Berlin conference and serves as one of the collection's ethical anchors. A primary consensus identified is the urgent need for bidirectional BCI technologies to remain strictly focused on medical needs, with a proposed ban on their implantation in healthy populations until long-term well-being and cognitive liberty are guaranteed. The summary introduces the concept of “oblomovization” (a term coined by Niels Birbaumer during the conference), describing a state of lethargy and passivity caused by over-reliance on neurotechnology for daily functions, which must be mitigated through public awareness. Furthermore, the conference participants emphasised that neurotechnology may create instances of existential dependency, particularly when a device becomes integrated into a patient's sense of self. The findings demand a “right to mental self-determination” and a transition toward “soft assembly” mechanisms where distributed competencies are valued over individual ability. Ultimately, the summary calls for a global framework - similar to the one recently issued by UNESCO -that balances rapid innovation with the protection of human rights and dignity, ensuring that neurotechnology remains a benefit to humanity at large rather than a tool for surveillance or control.

3 Conclusions

In general, we would highlight that despite the wealth of data and arguments in this collection, several “unsolved mysteries” remain at the heart of the neuroprivacy debate: what are the long-term post-trial responsibilities of manufacturers when a device becomes an essential part of an individual's identity, but the company ceases operations? Also, as enhancement technologies become increasingly available on the consumer market, who decides (and how) what constitutes “unlocking human potential” versus “distorting behaviour”? And, finally, how can we prevent the dual-usage of neurotechnology —where media hype and military interests oscillate between fear and enthusiasm - from dictating global policy?

In conclusion, the research presented here indicates that we are entering an era of unprecedented human-machine interaction, with the risk of existential dependency on neurotechnology, which, therefore, necessitates transdisciplinary science discussion (possibly - the editors claim - a new fertile branch for science diplomacy). The collection demonstrates that neuroprivacy cannot be addressed as a series of isolated technical hurdles, because it is a fundamental challenge to human dignity that requires a cohesive legal and ethical framework. We must delve deeper into the multidisciplinary connections between neuroscience, IT, law, and ethics to allow researchers from diverse backgrounds to understand and address these phenomena together. We invite the academic community and policymakers to move away from the intrusive paradigms emerging from for-profit neurodevices development and join the scholars presenting their results in this collection in defining a social framework that protects the sanctity of the mind while responsibly unlocking the hybrid potentials of the future.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

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.

Footnotes

Edited and Reviewed by: Peter David Tolmie, University of Siegen, Germany