Mapping the Dimensions of Agency

REFERENCES

• Ahlin, J. 2018. The Impossibility of Reliably Determining the Authenticity of Desires: Implications for Informed Consent. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 21 (1):43–50. doi:10.1007/s11019-017-9783-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahn, M., and S. C. Jun. 2015. Performance Variation in Motor Imagery brain-computer interface: a brief review. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 243:103–10. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2015.01.033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widge, A. S., D. A. Malone, and D. D. Dougherty. 2018. Closing the Loop on Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression. FOCUS 16 (3):305–13. doi:10.1176/appi.focus.16302.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Allen, A. 1997. Genetic Privacy: Emerging Concepts and Values. In Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era, edited by Mark Rothstein, 31–59. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, A. 2014. Privacy in Health Care. In Encyclopedia of Bioethics, edited by Bruce Jennings, 4th ed. New York: MacMillan Reference Books.
   Google Scholar
• Anumanchipalli, G. K., J. Chartier, and E. F. Chang. 2019. Speech Synthesis from Neural Decoding of Spoken Sentences. Nature 568 (7753):493–8. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1119-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baier, A. 1986. Trust and Antitrust. Ethics 96 (2):231–60. doi:10.1086/292745.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baylis, F. 2013. “I Am Who I Am”: On the Perceived Threats to Personal Identity from Deep Brain Stimulation. Neuroethics 6 (3):513–26. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9137-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauchamp, T. L. 2000. The Right to Privacy and the Right to Die. Social Philosophy and Policy 17 (2):276–92. doi:10.1017/S0265052500002193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bierria, A. 2014. Missing in Action: Violence, Power, and Discerning Agency. Hypatia 29 (1):129–45. doi:10.1111/hypa.12074.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botvinick, M., and J. Cohen. 1998. Rubber Hands 'feel' touch that eyes see. Nature 391 (6669):756. doi:10.1038/35784.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouffard, J., C. Vincent, É. Boulianne, S. Lajoie, and C. Mercier. 2012. Interactions Between the Phantom Limb Sensations, Prosthesis Use, and Rehabilitation as Seen by Amputees and Health Professionals. JPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics 24 (1):25–33. doi:10.1097/JPO.0b013e318240d171.
   Google Scholar
• Brand, M. 1984. Intending and Acting: Toward a Naturalized Action Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bratman, M. 1987. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bratman, M. 2014. Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, N., S. Debener, N. Spychala, E. Bongartz, P. Sörös, H. H. O. Müller, and A. Philipsen. 2018. The Senses of Agency and Ownership: A Review. Front Psychol 9:535(April 16). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bublitz, J. C., and R. Merkel. 2009. Autonomy and Authenticity of Enhanced Personality Traits. Bioethics 23 (6):360–374. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01725.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buss, S., and A. Westlund. 2018. Personal Autonomy. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2018. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/personal-autonomy/.
   Google Scholar
• Chappell, T. 2002. Two Distinctions That Do Make a Difference: The Action/Omission Distinction and the Principle of Double Effect. Philosophy 77 (2):211–233. doi:10.1017/S0031819102000256.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, R. 2014. Omissions: Agency, Metaphysics, and Responsibility. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clausen, J. 2009. Man, Machine and in Between. Nature 457 (7233):1080–1081. doi:10.1038/4571080a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, K. L., A. Guterstam, J. Cronin, J. D. Olson, H. Henrik Ehrsson, and J. G. Ojemann. 2017. Ownership of an Artificial Limb Induced by Electrical Brain Stimulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (1):166–71. doi:10.1073/pnas.1616305114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronin, J. A., J. Wu, K. L. Collins, D. Sarma, R. P. N. Rao, J. G. Ojemann, and J. D. Olson. 2016. Task-Specific Somatosensory Feedback via Cortical Stimulation in Humans. IEEE Trans Haptics 9 (4):515–22. doi:10.1109/TOH.2016.2591952.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degrazia, D. 2000. Prozac, Enhancement, and Self-Creation. The Hastings Center Report 30 (2):34–40. doi:10.2307/3528313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doris, J. M. 2015. Talking to Our Selves: Reflection, Ignorance, and Agency. 1. ed. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dubiel, H. 2009. Deep Within the Brain: Living with Parkinson’s Disease. New York: Europa Editions UK.
   Google Scholar
• Farina, D., and O. Aszmann. 2014. Bionic Limbs: Clinical Reality and Academic Promises. Science Translational Medicine 6 (257):257ps12. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3010453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French, J. 2012. On My Feet Again: My Journey Out of the Wheelchair Using Neurotechnology. San Francisco, CA: Neurotech Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fritz, K. G. 2018. Moral Responsibility, Voluntary Control, and Intentional Action. Philosophia 46 (4):831–55. doi:10.1007/s11406-018-9968-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, F. 2015. A Threat to Autonomy? The Intrusion of Predictive Brain Implants. AJOB Neurosci 6 (4):4–11. doi:10.1080/21507740.2015.1076087.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gilbert, M. 1990. Walking Together: A Paradigmatic Social Phenomenon. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 15 (1):1–14. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.1990.tb00202.x.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, F., T. Brown, I. Dasgupta, H. Martens, E. Klein, and S. Goering. 2019. An Instrument to Capture the Phenomenology of Implantable Brain Device Use. Neuroethics. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12152-019-09422-7#citeas.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, F., J. N. M. Viaña, and C. Ineichen. 2018. Deflating the ‘DBS Causes Personality Changes’ Bubble. Neuroethics. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-018-9373-8#citeas. doi:10.1007/s12152-018-9373-8.
   Google Scholar
• Glannon, W. 2009. Stimulating Brains, Altering Minds. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5):289–292. doi:10.1136/jme.2008.027789.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goering, S., E. Klein, D. D. Dougherty, and A. S. Widge. 2017. Staying in the Loop: Relational Agency and Identity in Next-Generation DBS for Psychiatry. AJOB Neuroscience 8 (2):59–70. doi:10.1080/21507740.2017.1320320.
   Google Scholar
• Greely, H. T., C. Grady, K. M. Ramos, W. Chiong, J. Eberwine, N. A. Farahany, L. S. M. Johnson, B. T. Hyman, S. E. Hyman, K. S. Rommelfanger, et al. 2018. Neuroethics Guiding Principles for the NIH BRAIN Initiative. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience 38 (50):10586–88. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2077-18.2018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grübler, G. 2011. Beyond the Responsibility Gap. Discussion Note on Responsibility and Liability in the Use of Brain-Computer Interfaces. AI & SOCIETY 26 (4):377–82. doi:10.1007/s00146-011-0321-y.
   Google Scholar
• Haan, S. D. 2017. Becoming More Oneself? Changes in Personality Following DBS Treatment for Psychiatric Disorders: Experiences of OCD Patients and General Considerations. PLOS One. 12 (4):e0175748. Edited by Christian Schmahl. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175748..
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haan, S. d., E. Rietveld, M. Stokhof, and D. Denys. 2015. Effects of Deep Brain Stimulation on the Lived Experience of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Patients: In-Depth Interviews with 18 Patients. Plos ONE 10 (8):e0135524. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haselager, P. 2013. Did I Do That? Brain–Computer Interfacing and the Sense of Agency. Minds and Machines 23 (3):405–18. doi:10.1007/s11023-012-9298-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawley, K. 2014. Trust, Distrust and Commitment. Noûs 48 (1):1–20. doi:10.1111/nous.12000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heersmink, R. 2011. “Epistemological and Phenomenological Issues in the Use of Brain-Computer Interfaces.” In Proceedings IACAP 2011: First International Conference of IACAP: The Computational Turn: Past, Presents, Futures?, 4 – 6 July, 2011, Aarhus University, 87–90. MV-Wissenschaft. https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/epistemological-and-phenomenological-issues-in-the-use-of-brain-c.
   Google Scholar
• Henne, P., Á. Pinillos, and F. De Brigard. 2017. Cause by Omission and Norm: Not Watering Plants. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 95 (2):270–83. doi:10.1080/00048402.2016.1182567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holm, S., and T. C. Voo. 2011. Brain-Machine Interfaces and Personal Responsibility for Action-Maybe Not as Complicated after All. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 4 (3). doi:10.2202/1941-6008.1153.
   Google Scholar
• Igo, S. E. 2018. The Known Citizen: A History of Privacy in Modern America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ihde, D. 1990. Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Technology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, L. A., J. D. Wander, D. Sarma, D. K. Su, E. E. Fetz, and J. G. Ojemann. 2013. Direct Electrical Stimulation of the Somatosensory Cortex in Humans Using Electrocorticography Electrodes: A Qualitative and Quantitative Report. Journal of Neural Engineering 10 (3):036021. doi:10.1088/1741-2560/10/3/036021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, K. 1996. Trust as an Affective Attitude. Ethics 107 (1):4–25. doi:10.1086/233694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellmeyer, P., T. Cochrane, O. Müller, C. Mitchell, T. Ball, J. J. Fins, and N. Biller-Andorno. 2016. The Effects of Closed-Loop Medical Devices on the Autonomy and Accountability of Persons and Systems. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 25 (4):623–33. doi:10.1017/S0963180116000359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, E., S. Goering, J. Gagne, C. V. Shea, R. Franklin, S. Zorowitz, D. D. Dougherty, and A. S. Widge. 2016. Brain-Computer Interface-Based Control of Closed-Loop Brain Stimulation: Attitudes and Ethical Considerations. Brain-Computer Interfaces 3 (3):140–48. doi:10.1080/2326263X.2016.1207497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, E., and A. Rubel. 2018. Privacy and Ethics in Brain–Computer Interface Research. In: Nam, C. S., A, Nijholt, and F. Lotte, eds. Brain–computer interfaces handbook, 653–668. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis, CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kögel, J., R. J. Jox, and O. Friedrich. 2020. What Is It like to Use a BCI? - insights from an interview study with brain-computer interface users. BMC Medical Ethics 21 (1):2. doi:10.1186/s12910-019-0442-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraemer, F. (2011). Authenticity anyone? The enhancement of emotions via neuro-psychopharmacology. Neuroethics 4 (1):51–64.
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, F. 2013a. Authenticity or Autonomy? When Deep Brain Stimulation Causes a Dilemma. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (12):757–60. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer, F. 2013b. Me, Myself and My Brain Implant: Deep Brain Stimulation Raises Questions of Personal Authenticity and Alienation. Neuroethics 6 (3):483–97. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9115-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer, D. R., S. Kellis, M. Barbaro, M. A. Salas, G. Nune, C. Y. Liu, R. A. Andersen, and B. Lee. 2019. Technical Considerations for Generating Somatosensation via Cortical Stimulation in a Closed-Loop Sensory/Motor Brain-Computer Interface System in Humans. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 63:116–21. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2019.01.027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krol, L. R., P. Haselager, and T. O. Zander. 2020. Cognitive and Affective Probing: A Tutorial and Review of Active Learning for Neuroadaptive Technology. Journal of Neural Engineering 17 (1):012001. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ab5bb5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupfer, J. 1987. Privacy, Autonomy, and Self-Concept. American Philosophical Quarterly 24 (1):81–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, B., D. Kramer, M. Armenta Salas, S. Kellis, D. Brown, T. Dobreva, C. Klaes, C. Heck, C. Liu, and R. A. Andersen. 2018. Engineering Artificial Somatosensation Through Cortical Stimulation in Humans. Front Syst Neurosci 12:24. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2018.00024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindemann, H. 2014. Holding and Letting Go: The Social Practice of Personal Identities. Holding and Letting Go. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, Catriona, and Natalie Stoljar, eds. 2000. Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Automony, Agency, and the Social Self. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, S., P. Brunner, C. Holdgraf, H.-J. Heinze, N. E. Crone, J. Rieger, G. Schalk, R. T. Knight, and B. N. Pasley. 2014. Decoding Spectrotemporal Features of Overt and Covert Speech from the Human Cortex. Frontiers in Neuroengineering 7:14. doi:10.3389/fneng.2014.00014.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maslen, H., J. Pugh, and J. Savulescu. 2015. The Ethics of Deep Brain Stimulation for the Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa. Neuroethics 8 (3):215–30. doi:10.1007/s12152-015-9240-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLeod, C. 2002. Self-Trust and Reproductive Autonomy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mele, A. R. 1992. Springs of Action: Understanding Intentional Behavior. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nelkin, Dana, and Samuel Rickles, eds. 2017. The Ethics and Law of Omissions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nijboer, F., J. Clausen, B. Z. Allison, and P. Haselager. 2013. The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders' Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing. Neuroethics 6 (3):541–78. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9132-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brolchain, F., 2014. and, and B. Gordijn. Brain–Computer Interfaces and User Responsibility. In Brain-Computer-Interfaces in Their Ethical, Social and Cultural Contexts, edited by Gerd Grübler and Elisabeth Hildt, 12:163–182. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill, O. 2002. “AUTONOMY AND TRUST IN BIOETHICS.” 241300. 2002. https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/547087.
   Google Scholar
• Pacherie, E. 2008. The Phenomenology of Action: A Conceptual Framework. Cognition “Cognition” 107 (1):179–217. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.09.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pacherie, E. 2012. The Phenomenology of Joint Action: Self Agency vs. Joint-Agency. In Joint Attention: New Developments, edited by Axel Seemann. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pacherie, E. 2013. Intentional Joint Agency: Shared Intention Lite. Synthese 190 (10):1817–39. doi:10.1007/s11229-013-0263-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parens, E. 2014. Shaping Our Selves: On Technology, Flourishing, and a Habit of Thinking. Shaping Our Selves. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perez-Marcos, D., M. Slater, and M. V. Sanchez-Vives. 2009. Inducing a Virtual Hand Ownership Illusion through a Brain-Computer interface. Neuroreport 20 (6):589–94. doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e32832a0a2a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perruchoud, D., I. Pisotta, S. Carda, S. MM. Murray, and S. Ionta. 2016. Biomimetic rehabilitation engineering: The importance of somatosensory feedback for brain–machine interfaces. Journal of Neural Engineering 13, 041001.
   Google Scholar
• Pugh, J., H. Maslen, and J. Savulescu. 2017. Deep Brain Stimulation, Authenticity and Value. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics: CQ: The International Journal of Healthcare Ethics Committees 26 (4):640–57. doi:10.1017/S0963180117000147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salles, A., J. G. Bjaalie, K. Evers, M. Farisco, B. T. Fothergill, M. Guerrero, H. Maslen, J. Muller, T. Prescott, B. C. Stahl, et al. 2019. The Human Brain Project: Responsible Brain Research for the Benefit of Society. Neuron 101 (3):380–84. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schönau, A. 2021. The spectrum of responsibility ascription for end users of neurotechnologies. Neuroethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-021-09460-0
   Google Scholar
• Schüpbach, M., M. Gargiulo, M. L. Welter, L. Mallet, C. Behar, J. L. Houeto, D. Maltete, V. Mesnage, and Y. Agid. 2006. Neurosurgery in Parkinson disease: a distressed mind in a repaired body? Neurology 66 (12):1811–1816. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000234880.51322.16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherwin, S. 1998. The Politics of Women’s Health: Exploring Agency and Autonomy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steinert, S.,. C. Bublitz, R. Jox, and O. Friedrich. 2019. Doing Things with Thoughts: Brain-Computer Interfaces and Disembodied Agency. Philosophy & Technology 32 (3):457–82. doi:10.1007/s13347-018-0308-4.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. 1992. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tbalvandany, S. S., B. S. Harhangi, A. W. Prins, and M. H. N. Schermer. 2019. Embodiment in Neuro-Engineering Endeavors: Phenomenological Considerations and Practical Implications. Neuroethics 12 (3):231–42. doi:10.1007/s12152-018-9383-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Upson, S. 2014. “What Is It Like to Control a Robotic Arm with a Brain Implant?” Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-it-like-to-control-a-robotic-arm-with-a-brain-implant/.
   Google Scholar
• Vansteensel, M. J., E. G. M. Pels, M. G. Bleichner, M. P. Branco, T. Denison, Z. V. Freudenburg, P. Gosselaar, S. Leinders, T. H. Ottens, M. A. Van Den Boom, et al. 2016. Fully Implanted Brain-Computer Interface in a Locked-In Patient with ALS . The New England Journal of Medicine 375 (21):2060–66. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1608085.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varga, S., and C. Guignon. 2020. “Authenticity.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2020. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/authenticity/.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, M. J., and C. Mackenzie. 2020. Neurotechnologies, Relational Autonomy, and Authenticity. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 13 (1):98–119. doi:10.3138/ijfab.13.1.06.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wollard, F., and F. Howard-Snyder. 2016. Doing vs. Allowing Harm. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/.
   Google Scholar
• Wolpaw, J. R., and E. W. Wolpaw. 2012. Brain-Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar