Abstract
Background Advances in the development of neurotechnologies have the potential to revolutionize treatment of brain-based conditions. However, a critical concern revolves around the willingness of the public to embrace these technologies, especially considering the tumultuous histories of certain neurosurgical interventions. Therefore, examining public attitudes is paramount to uncovering potential barriers to adoption ensuring ethically sound innovation.
Methods In the present study, we investigate public attitudes towards the use of four neurotechnologies (within-subjects conditions): deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), pills, and MRI-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) as potential treatments to a person experiencing either mood, memory, or motor symptoms (between-subjects conditions). US-based participants (N=1052; stratified to be nationally representative based on sex, race, age) were asked about their perceptions of risk, benefit, invasiveness, acceptability, perceived change to the person, and personal interest in using these neurotechnologies for symptom alleviation.
Results Descriptive results indicate variability between technologies that the U.S. public is willing to consider if experiencing severe mood, memory, or motor symptoms. The main effect of neurotechnology revealed DBS was viewed as the most invasive and risky treatment and was perceived to lead to the greatest change to who someone is as a person. DBS was also viewed as least likely to be personally used and least acceptable for use by others. When examining the main effects of symptomatology, we found that all forms of neuromodulation were perceived as significantly more beneficial, acceptable, and likely to be used by participants for motor symptoms, followed by memory symptoms, and lastly mood symptoms. Neuromodulation (averaging across neurotechnologies) was perceived as significantly riskier, more invasive, and leading to a greater change to person for mood versus motor symptoms; however, memory and motor symptoms were perceived similarly with respect to risk, invasiveness, and change to person.
Conclusion These results suggest that the public views neuromodulatory approaches that require surgery (i.e., DBS and MRgFUS) as riskier, more invasive, and less acceptable than those that do not. Further, findings suggest individuals may be more reluctant to alter or treat psychological symptoms with neuromodulation compared to physical symptoms.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was funded in part by the DANA Foundation. PZ contribution to the research reported in this publication was also supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as part of the NIH BRAIN Initiative under Award Number F32MH127776, administered by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH BRAIN Initiative, NINDS, NIMH, Harvard Medical School, Minnesota Law School, or MGH
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Approved by Harvard Medical School Institutional Review Board
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Co-first authorship
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
