Rehabilitation culture and its impact on technology: unpacking practical conditions for ultrabilitation

References

• Buetow SA, Martínez-Martín P, McCormack B. Ultrabilitation: beyond recovery-oriented rehabilitation. Dis Rehabil. 2017. DOI:10.1080/09638288.2017.1406997
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandel MJ. The case against perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2007. English.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff S. Perfecting the human: posthuman imaginaries and technologies of reason. In: Hurlbut JB, Tirosh-Samuelson H, editors. Perfecting human futures: transhuman visions and technological imaginations. Wiesbaden: Springer VS; 2016. p. 73–95.
   Google Scholar
• Tremain S. On the government of disability. Soc Theory Pract. 2001;27:617–636.
   Google Scholar
• Scheper‐Hughes N, Lock MM. The mindful body: a prolegomenon to future work in medical anthropology. Med Anthr Q. 1987;1:6–41.
   Google Scholar
• Wolpaw JR, Birbaumer N, McFarland DJ, et al. Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin Neurophysiol. 2002;113:767–791.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soekadar SR, Birbaumer N, Cohen LG. Brain–computer interfaces in the rehabilitation of stroke and neurotrauma. In: Kansaku K and Cohen L, editors. Systems neuroscience and rehabilitation: New York: Springer; 2011. p.3–18.
   Google Scholar
• Li Y, Pan J, Wang F, et al. A hybrid BCI system combining P300 and SSVEP and its application to wheelchair control. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013;60:3156–3166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bijker WE, Pinch T. The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In: Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch T, editors. The Social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1987. p. 11–45.
   Google Scholar
• Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy. 2013;42:1568–1580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers-Payette O, Lehoux P, Daudelin G. Responsible research and innovation: a productive model for the future of medical innovation. J Responsib Innov. 2016;3:188–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolbring G, Diep L. Cognitive/neuroenhancement through an ability studies lens. In: Jotterand F, Dubljevic V, editors. Cognitive enhancement: Ethical and policy implications in international perspectives. Oxford: Oxford Press; 2016. p. 57–75.
   Google Scholar
• Blain-Moraes S, Schaff R, Gruis KL, et al. Barriers to and mediators of brain-computer interface user acceptance: focus group findings. Ergonomics. 2012;55:516–525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widge AS, Dougherty DD, Moritz CT. Affective brain-computer interfaces as enabling technology for responsive psychiatric stimulation. Brain-Computer Interfaces. 2014;1:126–136.
   Google Scholar
• Mikołajewska E, Mikołajewski D. Neuroprostheses for increasing disabled patients' mobility and control. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2012;21:263–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brumberg JS, Pitt KM, Mantie-Kozlowski A. Brain-computer interfaces for augmentative and alternative communication: a tutorial. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;27:1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization, World Bank. World report on disability. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Kielhofner G. Rethinking disability and what to do about it: disability studies and its implications for occupational therapy. Am J Occup Ther. 2005;59:487–496.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imrie R. Rethinking the relationships between disability, rehabilitation, and society. Dis Rehabil. 1997;19:263–271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Praestegaard J, Gard G. Ethical issues in physiotherapy – reflected from the perspective of physiotherapists in private practice. Physiother Theory Pract. 2013;29:96–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drolet M-J, Désormeaux-Moreau M. The values of occupational therapy: perceptions of occupational therapists in Quebec. Scand J Occup Ther. 2016;23:272–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Advocacy. 2018 [August 2018]. [cited 2018 Oct 30]. Available from: https://physiotherapy.ca/advocacy.
   Google Scholar
• Grady AP. Building Inclusive Community: a challenge for occupational therapy – 1994 Eleanor Clarke Slagle Lecture. Am J Occup Ther. 1995;49:300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kostanjsek N. Use of The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a conceptual framework and common language for disability statistics and health information systems. BMC Pub Health. 2011;11:S3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roush SE, Sharby N. Disability reconsidered: the paradox of physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2011;91:1715–1727.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulis I. Bioethics and physiotherapy. J Med Ethics. 2007;33:435–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delany CM, Edwards I, Jensen GM, et al. Closing the gap between ethics knowledge and practice through active engagement: an applied model of physical therapy ethics. Phys Ther. 2010;90:1068–1078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan LS, Klein E, Brown T, et al. Keeping disability in mind: a case study in implantable brain-computer interface research. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24:479–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose NS. Politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Phelan SK, Wright V, Gibson BE. Representations of disability and normality in rehabilitation technology promotional materials. Dis Rehabil. 2014;36:2072–2079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar