Ethical Implications of the Neurotechnology Touchpoints

This piece belongs to a series of student posts written during the Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology Paris study abroad program taught by Dr. Karen Rommelfanger in June 2018.

By Janet Guo

The TouchPoint Solution™ (commonly referred to as TouchPoints™) is a noninvasive neurotechnology device that one can wear on any part of the body. The device can be accessorized (detachable wristband in each pack available), so it can be worn like a watch or placed inside a pocket or sock. The founders of TouchPoints™, Dr. Amy Serin and entrepreneur Vicki Mayo, consider it to be a neuroscientific device because of the bilateral alternating stimulation tactile (BLAST) action it allows the user’s brain to undergo. This is a device that can affect people in good health or those who suffer from a neurologic disease and is therefore classifiable as a neuroscientific device by the broad scientific definition proposed by Illes & Lombera (2009). The website even claims that the brain can “create new neural pathways that are net positive” and has a “lasting effect on your brain”. In many of the TouchPoints™ advertisements (many of which can be found on the official TouchPoints™ YouTube channel, TouchPoints™ devices are claimed to relieve stress by 70% in under 30 seconds. 

TouchPoints™ was originally launched in late 2015 with the mission of bringing relief to people who have high levels of stress and anxiety. This technology has been through several developments and newer, cheaper versions have been released since its initial launch.  Its presence in news media has been increasing-- Huffington Post (Wolfson, 2017), Mashable (Mashable staff, 2017), and The Washington Times (Szadkowski, 2017) are only a few of the popular news and opinion websites that have published pieces about TouchPoints™. An investigation of the science and ethics behind this device is warranted as the number of sales is increasing greatly due to the expansion of the company to the international level. This expansion was highlighted by founder Dr. Amy Serin at the 2017 SharpBrains Virtual Summit: Brain Health & Enhancement in the Digital Age (SharpBrains, 2018).

TouchPoints™ appears to be a helpful service to those who deal with extreme levels of stress, which is estimated to be around one-third of Americans, according to a 2007 nationwide survey (American Psychological Association, 2007). In addition, TouchPoints™ includes testimonials from users with Parkinson's disease, Autism, and ADHD along with insomnia and general stress, suggesting that its use has helped alleviate some of their symptoms (although there are no clinical claims made by The TouchPoint Solution™). 

Image courtesy of Pixabay

Neuropsychologist Dr. Serin and Vicki Mayo claim that TouchPoints™ works by BLAST technology that alters the body’s fight-or-flight (F3) response to stress or anxiety, allowing you to think clearly. Many of the academic studies cited in the TouchPoints™ site found that bilateral stimulation of the prefrontal cortex and inferior temporal lobe of the brain does in fact enhance comfortable feelings and is a recognized and accepted form of psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder, although the exact mechanism is still unclear (Amano & Toichi, 2016; Nieuwenhuis et al., 2012; Servan-Schreiber et al., 2006). Additionally, Nieuwenhuis et al. (2012) found that bilateral stimulation may have some effect on memory, which is not mentioned on the TouchPoints™ site. None of the peer-reviewed literature cited on the TouchPoints™ site extended the study population to those with Parkinson’s disease, Autism, or ADHD. While there are many case studies including testimonial from past TouchPoints™ users and in-house studies (which have undergone no clear peer-review process), these results must be taken with a sense of doubt since there is clear motivation and obvious bias in the studies Dr. Serin conducts to help market her own product. 

Besides critically evaluating the credibility of the science behind TouchPoints™, it is important to highlight some of the major ethical concerns this technology brings to the surface. Firstly, if this product really has the power to alleviate stress by up to 90%, then those who are able to afford it (starting at $160 for the Basic Value Bundle and reaching up to $1,999 for the TouchPoints™ original institutional pack), would have an advantage over those of a lower socioeconomic class. Unequal access has the potential to widen the current achievement gap we see between children from families of upper and lower socioeconomic class in terms of academic success (Smeding et al., 2013). Many of the TouchPoints™ advertisements promote the product by saying you can wear it within your socks or on your wrists underneath a long-sleeve shirt, which would make the device invisible to the naked eye. If TouchPoints™ is able to considerably lower your stress and anxiety levels, would this be fair to those who are asked to perform under the same high-stress conditions without this technology? Does the use of this device need to be publicized in the workplace or school setting? For example, for students who are taking a challenging exam, the one who has TouchPoints™ devices stored in his socks or on his wrists will feel less stress and perhaps may be able to perform better. This calls into question whether those in authority (such as teachers or employers) should hold the responsibility of allowing these devices in testing rooms. 

Image courtesy of Pixabay

Secondly, as this device becomes cheaper and wide-spread with time, a reliance on this technology may become embedded within society and could even change how we view fundamental features of the human condition. The human body currently has a typical stress response, which involves the release of many stress hormones (Koelsch et al., 2016); however, as time goes on and if this device is used in response to any sort of stress or anxiety, the body may adapt in such a way that it becomes reliant on TouchPoints™. From a neuroethical standpoint, TouchPoints™ has the potential to change a fundamental feature of the human condition mediated through a brain mechanism, although none of the studies on the TouchPoints™ website have addressed this directly. If future research shows the exact mechanism TouchPoints™ induces within the brain, and it differs greatly from the typical stress and anxiety response within the brain, then TouchPoints™ has the potential to alter some of the fundamental conditions of what it means to be human. In line with this, other neuroethical questions also arise: Would reliance on this technology change who you are and how you view yourself? Would diminishing your experience of stress keep you from positively adapting to that stress? Could it change the person you are becoming? 

Thirdly, questions of privacy and safety must be considered. The “Legal Conditions” outline many of the privacy concerns one may have in regard to data gathered by TouchPoints™ such as: Will one’s data be shared with third-parties? What actions will TouchPoints™ take to ensure that personal data, like number of times TouchPoints™ is used per day and personal identification (age, gender, etc.), is protected? Do these protective measures change from country to country? The current conditions are quite vague, and exactly what neurodata is being collected and how that is being analyzed is not explicitly stated. Neurodata is particularly vulnerable because it can contain data that allows for you to be identifiable and alteration or misuse of the data could lead to changes of your fundamental identity. The TouchPoints™ privacy policy states that any materials accessed by third-parties through Touchpoint Properties are available at the user’s own risk. TouchPoints™ also emphasizes that it assumes no responsibility for the “timeliness, deletion, mis-delivery or failure to store any content…, user communications or personalization settings”. This creates room for much concern about what information can be deleted when requested and when it will be deleted. TouchPoints™ can be purchased within many different countries (SharpBrains, 2018), and some services are exclusive to certain countries. TouchPoints™ emphasizes that “those who access or use the Touchpoint Properties from other countries do so at their own volition and are responsible for compliance with the local law”. This forces much of the responsibility on the user in order to ensure compliance with the local law. These aspects of the privacy policy are very general and mention nothing about the real-time access of a user’s data, which should be the minimum privacy standard (Purcell & Rommelfanger, 2017). 

These ethics concerns raise the following questions: Is TouchPoints™ truly a “neuro” technology? How credible and reliable is the research they use to support their claims? How necessary or useful is this device for those without any sort of medical condition? Is it fair for some people to have access and others not to? How might this affect daily human life in the future? TouchPoints™ forces us to consider the broader implications of how much neurotechnology has the potential to impact our daily lives and how easy it is for commercialization of medicalized products to muddy the science behind the product.

_______________

Janet Guo is a junior on the pre-medical track at Emory University majoring in Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology (NBB) with a minor in Chinese Studies. Her first professional exposure to neuroethics in an academic setting was in her NBB471 (Neuroethics) course during her study abroad experience in Paris, France and has remained extremely interested in the topic ever since.

References:

Amano, T., & Toichi, M. (2016). The Role of Alternating Bilateral Stimulation in Establishing Positive Cognition in EMDR Therapy: A Multi-Channel Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Study. Plos One,11(10). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162735

American Psychological Association. (2007). Stress a Major Health Problem in The U.S., Warns APA. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2007/10/stress.aspx 

Illes, J., & Lombera, S. (2009). Identifiable Neuro Ethics Challenges to the Banking of Neuro Data. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 10(1), 71-94. Retrieved July 2, 2018 

Koelsch, S., Boehlig, A., Hohenadel, M., Nitsche, I., Bauer, K., & Sack, U. (2016). The impact of acute stress on hormones and cytokines and how their recovery is affected by music-evoked positive mood. Scientific Reports,6(1). doi:10.1038/srep23008 

Mashable staff. (2017, November 27). Project Entrepreneur expands accelerator program to help more women entrepreneurs build scalable companies. Retrieved from https://mashable.com/2017/11/27/project-entrepreneur-3/?europe=true#JkIxMAFH0iqT 

Nieuwenhuis, S., Elzinga, B. M., Ras, P. H., Berends, F., Duijs, P., Samara, Z., & Slagter, H. A. (2013). Bilateral saccadic eye movements and tactile stimulation, but not auditory stimulation, enhance memory retrieval. Brain and Cognition,81(1), 52-56. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2012.10.003 

Purcell, R. H., & Rommelfanger, K. S. (2016). Biometric Tracking From Professional Athletes to Consumers. The American Journal of Bioethics, 17(1), 72-74. doi:10.1080/15265161.2016.1251652 

Servan-Schreiber, D., Schooler, J., Dew, M. A., Carter, C., & Bartone, P. (2006). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Pilot Blinded, Randomized Study of Stimulation Type. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics,75(5), 290-297. doi:10.1159/000093950 

Smeding, A., Darnon, C., Souchal, C., Toczek-Capelle, M., & Butera, F. (2013). Reducing the Socio-Economic Status Achievement Gap at University by Promoting Mastery-Oriented Assessment. PLoS ONE, 8(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071678 

Szadkowski, J. (2017, November 22). Holiday Gift Guide 2017 - Best in home and health gadgets. Retrieved from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/22/holiday-gift-guide-2017-best-home-health-gadgets/ 

Wolfson, R. (2017, September 23). A Wearable Stress Relief Device Helps You Relax, While Giving Back To Those In Need. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-wearable-stress-relief-device-helps-you-relax-while_us_59c47092e4b0b7022a64696d

Want to cite this post?




Guo, J. (2018). Ethical Implications of the Neurotechnology Touchpoints. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2018/09/ethical-implications-of-neurotechnology.html

The future of an AI artist

This piece belongs to a series of student posts written during the Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology Paris study abroad program taught by Dr. Karen Rommelfanger in June 2018.

By Coco Cao

An example of AI-generated art

Image courtesy of Flickr

An article published on New Scientist entitled, “Artificially intelligent painters invent new styles of art” has captured my attention. The article discussed a recent study conducted by Elgammal et al. (2017), who developed a computational creative system (the Creative Adversarial Network) for art generation based on the Generative Adversarial Network (GAN), which has the ability to generate novel images simulating a given distribution. Originally, GAN consisted of two neural networks, a generator and a discriminator. To create the Creative Adversarial Network (CAN), scientists trained the discriminator with 75753 art works from 25 art styles so it learned to categorize art works based on their styles. The discriminator also learned to distinguish between art and non-art pieces, based on learned art styles. Then, the discriminator is able to correct the generator, a network that generates art pieces. The generator eventually learns and produces art pieces that are indistinguishable from the human produced art pieces. While ensuring the art piece is still aesthetically pleasing, CAN generates abstract arts that enhance creativity by maximizing deviation from established art styles. 

After learning about AI’s ability to be “creative” and generate art pieces, I was frightened. Unlike AI’s application in a scientific context, AI in an art context elicits human feelings. Is it possible that AI artists could replace human artists in the future? Considering the importance of the author’s creativity and originality in art, the critical ethical concern regards the individualism of AI artists. Can we consider the art pieces generated from AI as expressions of themselves? 

In 1738, Jacques de Vaucanson, a French watchmaker, generated a life size mechanical duck with feathers. The mechanical duck could eat, move and flap its wings. Therefore, audiences refused to believe it was artificial, since the mechanical duck exhibited all of the behaviors of a real duck (Glimcher, 2004). If the mechanical duck was a real duck, like audiences believed, then the behaviors must have been generated by the mechanical duck. However, this situation may not be the case. The mechanical duck was likely programmed by Vaucanson, causing Vaucanson to be the generator of the mechanical duck’s behavior. In the case of an AI artist, Elgammal et al. (2017) stated in the paper that CAN involved human creative products in the learning process while the creative process was carried out by AI. Therefore, the AI creative process was hugely dependent on pre-exposure of artwork created by humans. Does this mean the artwork was originally created by AI? I don’t think so. During my recent visit to the “Artists and Robots” exhibition, which was held in the Grand Palais in Paris and presented the applications and implications of AI in arts, I noticed that there were some robot paintings with the human artist/programmer’s signatures on the paintings. In this case, the credit of the AI-generated art pieces still belonged to the human artists and programmers. Therefore, AI are not considered as an individual in an art context for now. 

Vaucanson's duck along with two of his other creations

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

Moreover, because AI is programmed to think like humans, does it mean humans already understand the biological basis of creativity and individualism? Moreover, are we able to program creativity and individualism? Currently, research suggests that three brain networks, which are the default mode network, the executive control network and the salience network, are related to creativity. Those three brain networks are scattered through the frontal and parietal cortices (Brenner, 2018). Regarding individualism, Chiao et al. (2009) suggests that neural activity in medial prefrontal cortex positively predicts individualistic and collectivistic views of self. However, all brain areas are interconnected, and we still don’t know the specific neuronal interactions involved in creativity and individualism. Without actually understanding the human neuronal basis of creativity and individualism, we are unable to program creativity and individualism into AIs. Therefore, art pieces generated by AI are not original. 

Other than the originality of art, the meaning of art is also crucial. We can evaluate meanings of art in two contexts: the meaning to the audience viewing the art and the meaning to the artists who created the art. Ted Snell (2018, May 04), the Cultural Precinct director of University of Western Australia, concluded that the evaluation of art depends on audiences’ knowledge and experience. Considering the subjectivity in art evaluation, what is the meaning of art to an artist? 

Image courtesy of Pixabay

There are different kinds of art. As a dance minor student, I am more familiar with performing arts. After years of training in classical ballet, I witnessed my technical improvements as I put more effort into my dancing. However, dance is not only about physical growth in overcoming technical challenges. It also helps me to grow mentally: as I started to accept my imperfectness and I became more humble and persistent in training. If art brings artists mental growth, we still have no way to measure the meaning of growing for AI. Until now, AI’s learning process has been largely guided by humans and AI is currently developed under a human societal context. Therefore, if we consider AI as an individual but biologically distinct from a human, do human societal values apply to AIs? 

So far, we can neither consider those AI artists as individuals nor do we have any way to measure the AI mental growth experienced while producing those works. However, we cannot neglect the infinite possibilities of art pieces generated by AI. Also, considering the immortality of AI, AI could someday exceed us by continuously learning and improving. “Robot” originates from the Czech word “Robotnik,” which means slave. It is possible that AI could “enslave” us in the future. While it is interesting to experiment with AI’s ability in creating arts, we need to evaluate the consequences of accepting AI art pieces. Nevertheless, it is truly fascinating to see the artworks created by an AI artist! 

_______________

Coco Cao is a fourth-year undergraduate student at Emory University, majoring in Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology and minoring in Dance and movement studies. She is originally from China and hopes to pursue a career in medicine.

References: 

Baraniuk, C. (2017, June 29). Artificially intelligent painters invent new styles of art. Retrieved June 14, 2018, from https://www.newscientist.com/article/2139184-artificially-intelligent-painters-invent-new-styles-of-art/ 

Brenner, G. H. (2018, February 22). Your Brain on Creativity. Retrieved July 5, 2018, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/201802/your-brain-creativity 

Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Komeda, H., Li, Z., Mano, Y., Saito, D., Iidaka, T. (2009). Neural basis of individualistic and collectivistic views of self. Human Brain Mapping,30(9), 2813-2820. doi:10.1002/hbm.20707 

Elgammal, A., Liu, B., Elhoseiny, M., & Mazzone, M. (2017). CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks, Generating" Art" by Learning About Styles and Deviating from Style Norms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.07068. 

Glimcher, P. W. (2004). Decisions, uncertainty, and the brain: The science of neuroeconomics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Réunion des musées nationaux – Grand Palais. (n.d.). Artists & Robots. Retrieved July 5, 2018, from https://www.grandpalais.fr/en/event/artists-robots 

Snell, T. (2018, May 04). On judging art prizes (it's all subjective, isn't it?). Retrieved June 14, 2018, from https://theconversation.com/on-judging-art-prizes-its-all-subjective-isnt-it-38430

Want to cite this post?



Cao, C. (2018). The future of an AI artist. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2018/09/the-future-of-ai-artist.html

Reflections on the Neuroethics Network Conference in Paris

By Thomasine Kushner 



*Editor's Note: Tomi Kushner is co-chair with Yves Agid for the Annual Neuroethics Network Conference in France. She had these reflections to offer.  The remainder of the posts this week will feature student reflections on various sessions in the conference. Enjoy!

The 3rd Neuroethics Network conference took place, June 29-July 1, 2016 hosted by ICM (Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière), Paris’ renowned Brain and Spine Institute. This annual conference brings together researchers, scholars and clinicians in neuroscience, neurology, psychiatry, and law to foster dialogue and interdisciplinary collaboration with regard to the ethical issues generated by advances in brain science.

A theme of the Neuroethics Network is that in order for neuroethics to be effective on an increasingly broader, more pluralized world stage, the field needs to “go global.” Contributing to a more international vision this year were delegates from: Argentina, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Serbia, Switzerland, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, and USA.

Echoing the diversity of the geographical representation was the wide variety of topics addressed, including: “Is the Brain Anything More than a 20-Watt Supercomputer?” (Yves Agid, ICM ,France), “Mosaics in Neuroethics: Piecing Together the Capacity Puzzle” (Joseph Fins, Weill Cornell Medical College, USA ) “How Smart Do We Want Machines to Be?” (John Harris, University of Manchester, United Kingdom) “Nonreductive Approaches to Human Neuroscience and the Care of Severe Brain Injury” (Grant Gillett, Otago Bioethics Centre, New Zealand).

A highlight of the meeting was the traditional “Cinema du Cerveau,” which shows a commercial film, followed by a panel commenting on the neuroethics dilemmas raised. This year the film was “Limitless,” in which “smart drugs” offer enhanced mental acuity but, as the plot unfolds, produce unforeseen consequences.

Emory University played a prominent role in the film session with Karen Rommelfanger, of the Neuroethics Program in the Center for Ethics, on
the panel and 21 Emory University students participating in the audience
discussion. Many of the students also continued their questions
throughout the next day and took advantage of the opportunities to speak
with our esteemed colleagues during the breaks.

The entire program and the roster of excellent talks can be seen here.

Introduced for the first time at a bioethics meeting were Electronic Posters, displayed on TV monitors throughout the meeting and to be posted on the Neuroethics Network website (under construction) for the coming year. Plans are already underway for next year’s Neuroethics Network meeting, June 19, 20, 21 2017, and E-Poster submissions are warmly welcomed.

The Neuroethics Network also heralded the establishment of “Clinical Neuroethics,” a new annual issue of “CQ the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.” The first issue will make its debut in October 2016. Recognizing that the aim of brain science is to improve patient care, CN will serve as a forum for discussing how findings in the lab should best be applied to the real world of patient care. Thomasine Kushner serves as Editor and James Giordano as Associate Editor.

For information on the Neuroethics Network meeting in Paris, 2017, and Clinical Neuroethics, contact kushertk@gmail.com