Day 1: Advancing Participant Engagement in BCI Research: Who, Why, and How?

While ethicists, researchers, and study participants have expressed the importance of participant engagement in brain computer interface studies, there is neither consensus nor widespread guidance on what engagement in these studies ought to encompass, why it should be done, and how to do it. Given that these studies (1) are only done with individuals with significant disabilities, requiring brain surgery and years of intensive involvement with no promise of clinical benefit, (2) offer unique opportunities to influence important aspects of device design in line with the values of people with disabilities, and (3) have inspired a rise of industry partners seeking to bring these neurotechnologies to market, now is a crucial time to advance guidance on participant engagement to maximize the benefits of technology for current and future participants.
Through sharing their own experiences with BCI research and engagement efforts, this panel will describe the current state of participant engagement, gaps in current practices and under appreciated opportunities for improved engagement, and the ethical foundations that should guide increased engagement efforts. Moderated by Dr. Ashley Feinsinger, experiences will be shared through the advocacy lens (Jennifer French), the neural engineering lens (Dr. Jennifer Collinger), the participant lens (Phil McKenzie), and the clinical researcher lens (Dr. Nader Pouratian).

[@merlepatterson]

Every single cell phone connected to the internet and on someone's person is a "BCI Device" Now to define the difference between "Subject" and "Participant"? The default setting for greater society's "participation" would be "Opt-out" unless and until asked to "Opt-in".