Race-Ethnicity, Rurality, and Age in Prospective Preferences and Concerns Regarding Closed-Loop Implanted Neural Devices.

OBJECTIVE: Responsive and human-centered neurotechnology development requires attention to public perceptions, particularly among groups underserved by existing treatments. METHODS: The authors conducted a preregistered nationally representative survey (https://osf.io/ej9h2) using the NORC at the University of Chicago AmeriSpeak panel. One vignette compared an implanted neural device with surgical resection in a scenario involving epilepsy, and another compared an implanted neural device with medications in a scenario involving mood disorders. The survey also contained questions about respondents' confidence that a device would be available if needed and confidence that enough research has been conducted among people like themselves. Responses were entered into nested survey-weighted logistic regression models, including a base demographic model (to test the overall effect of demographic factors) and an adjusted model that also included socioeconomic, religious and political, and health care access predictors. RESULTS: A total of 1,047 adults responded to the survey, which oversampled Black non-Hispanic (N=214), Hispanic (N=210), and rural (N=219) Americans. In the base demographic model, older Americans were more likely to prefer an implanted device in the two scenarios, and non-Hispanic Black Americans were less likely than non-Hispanic White Americans to prefer a device; rural Americans were less confident than urban or suburban Americans in having access, and non-Hispanic Black and rural Americans were less confident that enough research has been conducted among people like themselves. In adjusted models, income was a key mediator, partially explaining the effect of age and the contrast between Black and White non-Hispanic respondents on preferences for a device in the epilepsy scenario and fully explaining the effect of rurality on confidence in access. CONCLUSIONS: Demographic differences in prospective preferences and concerns highlight the importance of including members of underserved communities in neurotechnology development.

Patient experiences of resection versus responsive neurostimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy.

This study explored illness experiences and decision-making among patients with epilepsy who underwent two different types of surgical interventions: resection versus implantation of the NeuroPace Responsive Neurostimulation System (RNS). We recruited 31 participants from a level four epilepsy center in an academic medical institution. We observed 22 patient clinic visits (resection: n = 10, RNS: n = 12) and conducted 18 in-depth patient interviews (resection: n = seven, RNS: n = 11); most visits and interviews included patient caregivers. Using an applied ethnographic approach, we identified three major themes in the experiences of resection versus RNS patients. First, for patients in both cohorts, the therapeutic journey was circuitous in ways that defied standardized first-, second-, and third- line of care models. Second, in conceptualizing risk, resection patients emphasized the permanent loss of "taking out" brain tissue whereas RNS patients highlighted the reversibility of "putting in" a device. Lastly, in considering benefit, resection patients perceived their surgery as potentially curative while RNS patients understood implantation as primarily palliative with possible additional diagnostic benefit from chronic electrocorticography. Insight into the perspectives of patients and caregivers may help identify key topics for counseling and exploration by clinicians.

Closed-Loop Neuromodulation and Self-Perception in Clinical Treatment of Refractory Epilepsy.

Background: Newer "closed-loop" neurostimulation devices in development could, in theory, induce changes to patients' personalities and self-perceptions. Empirically, however, only limited data of patient and family experiences exist. Responsive neurostimulation (RNS) as a treatment for refractory epilepsy is the first approved and commercially available closed-loop brain stimulation system in clinical practice, presenting an opportunity to observe how conceptual neuroethical concerns manifest in clinical treatment.Methods: We conducted ethnographic research at a single academic medical center with an active RNS treatment program and collected data via direct observation of clinic visits and in-depth interviews with 12 patients and their caregivers. We used deductive and inductive analyses to identify the relationship between these devices and patient changes in personality and self-perception.Results: Participants generally did not attribute changes in patients' personalities or self-perception to implantation of or stimulation using RNS. They did report that RNS affected patients' experiences and conceptions of illness. In particular, the capacity to store and display electrophysiological data produced a common frame of reference and a shared vocabulary among patients and clinicians.Discussion: Empirical experiences of a clinical population being treated with closed-loop neuromodulation do not corroborate theoretical concerns about RNS devices described by neuroethicists and technology developers. However, closed-loop devices demonstrated an ability to change illness experiences. Even without altering identify and self-perception, they provided new cultural tools and metaphors for conceiving of epilepsy as an illness and of the process of diagnosis and treatment. These findings call attention to the need to situate neuroethical concerns in the broader contexts of patients' illness experiences and social circumstances.

Moral reasoning through the eyes of persons with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia.

Introduction: Persons with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) can exhibit apparently antisocial behaviors. An example is their tendency to adopt utilitarian choices in sacrificial moral dilemmas, i.e. harmful actions to promote overall welfare. Moral cognition models interpret such tendencies as deriving from a lack of emotional engagement and selective impairment in prosocial sentiments. Methods: We applied a qualitative approach to test those theoretical assumptions and to further explore the emotional experiences and values of people with bvFTD while they contemplate moral scenarios. We conducted semistructured interviews with 14 participants: 7 persons with bvFTD and 7 older healthy controls. Transcripts were coded using ATLAS.ti 5.0. Results: During the moral reasoning task, persons with bvFTD reported more positive emotions than negative and showed significantly less cognitive precision in their moral reasoning compared to controls. Persons with bvFTD also organized their choices predominantly around kindness and altruism, and their responses reflected higher rule compliance. Our study showed that bvFTD persons' utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas did not arise from an emotionally disengaged or antisocial perspective. Instead, they were underpinned by positive emotionality and prosocial values. Discussion: These findings enrich current understandings of moral cognition and highlight the importance of incorporating mixed methods approaches in dementia research that take into consideration the viewpoint of cognitively impaired individuals.