ArticleNeuroethics2025
The "wheels that keep me goin'": invisible forms of support for brain pioneers.
Article in Neuroethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Research participants as 'pioneers'? Exploring how neurotechnology research is adapting the rhetoric of scientific risk-taking, exploration and trailblazing.Science as culture · 2026Article
- Recommendations on post-trial responsibility in implantable neural device research: a multidisciplinary consensus study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research participants in long-term, first-in-human trials of implantable neural devices (i.e., brain pioneers) are critical to the success of the emerging field of neurotechnology. How these participants fare in studies can make or break a research program. Yet, their ability to enroll, participate, and seamlessly exit studies relies on both the support of family/caregivers and care from researchers that is often hidden from view. The present study offers an initial exploration of the different kinds of support that play a role in neural device trials from the perspectives of brain pioneers and their support partners (spouses, paid caregivers, parents, etc.). Using a mixed methods approach (semi-structured, open-ended interviews and a survey) with interpretive grounded theory, we present narratives from a study of six pioneers -- four in brain-computer interface (BCI) trials, and two in deep brain stimulation (DBS) trials -- and five support partners, about their experiences of being supported and supporting participants in implantable neural device studies. Our findings indicate the substantial amount of work involved on the part of pioneers - and some support partners - to make these studies successful. A central finding of the study is that non-logistical forms of support - social, emotional, and epistemic support - play a role, alongside more widely acknowledged forms of support, such as transportation and physical and clinical care. We argue that developing a better understanding of the kinds of support that enable neurotechnology studies to go well can help bridge the gap between abstract ethical principles of caring for subjects and on-the-ground practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.