In the rapidly evolving landscape of neuroscience and medical technology, the development of neurotechnologies offers promising new pathways to treat a spectrum of brain-based disorders. With conditions affecting mood, memory, and motor functions on the rise worldwide, a growing array of interventions aim to alleviate disabling symptoms and improve quality of life. Yet despite significant advances in techniques like deep brain stimulation and non-invasive brain stimulation, public understanding and acceptance of these tools remains limited. A groundbreaking study recently published in Device journal shines light on how the American public perceives a set of neurotechnological treatments, providing fresh insights into the complex balance of risk, benefit, and personal identity that shapes their attitudes.
Conducted under the auspices of the Neurotech Justice Accelerator at Mass General Brigham’s Dana Center for Neuroscience & Society, this ambitious survey involved over 1,000 adults representative of the U.S. population. Unlike prior research that typically isolates individual neurotechnologies during inquiry, this study uniquely compared four distinct interventions side-by-side. These included deep brain stimulation (DBS), MRI-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and traditional pharmacological treatments administered as pills. By evaluating these alongside one another, the researchers were able to map a nuanced landscape of public sentiment, revealing which approaches are considered viable and under what conditions.
Deep brain stimulation involves surgically implanting electrodes directly into targeted brain regions to modulate neural circuits implicated in disorders such as Parkinson’s disease and treatment-resistant depression. In contrast, MRI-guided focused ultrasound represents an emerging “incisionless” technique where high-frequency sound waves are precisely focused on diseased tissue to ablate or modulate it without opening the skull. Transcranial magnetic stimulation is a non-invasive method utilizing magnetic pulses directed at the scalp to stimulate cortical neurons. Pills, a longstanding mainstay of neurological and psychiatric treatment, serve here as a baseline against which newer neurotechnologies can be compared in terms of public acceptance.
Importantly, the study design randomized participants to consider these neurotechnologies for one of three severe symptom types: mood disorders, memory impairments, or motor dysfunctions. This experimental manipulation allowed the team to probe how the nature of the condition targeted influences perceptions of each treatment’s safety, invasiveness, and potential impact on identity. Participants evaluated each intervention on several dimensions: perceived benefit, acceptability, risk, invasiveness, and likelihood of personal use if afflicted with the symptoms in question. Additional measures explored whether individuals believed the interventions might alter who a person fundamentally is—a concept laden with ethical and philosophical weight.
Results underscored that despite generally low familiarity with advanced neurotechnologies other than pills, many respondents expressed openness to considering these therapies in the face of severe symptoms. Pills garnered the highest willingness for use at 61%, reflecting their deep integration into standard care and societal comfort with pharmacotherapy. Transcranial magnetic stimulation followed with 41%, and MRgFUS with 29%, while only 21% indicated they would consider deep brain stimulation. This gradient illustrates a clear public hierarchy in perceived acceptability, with non-invasive and familiar options preferred over surgical interventions.
Pills were consistently rated as the most beneficial, acceptable, and least risky of the four interventions. However, the perception of deep brain stimulation was more ambivalent. Although recognized as potentially beneficial, DBS was simultaneously viewed as invasive, risky, and potentially transformative of the individual’s core self. This apprehension likely stems from the invasive nature of neurosurgery and concerns about external modulation of personality or identity—issues that have long fueled ethical debates around DBS. Consequently, even perceived benefits do not fully counterbalance worries about profound personal change.
The symptom type participants considered significantly influenced attitudes as well. Neurotechnological interventions for motor impairments were generally judged as more acceptable and less invasive, while those aimed at severe mood symptoms were rated as more invasive and more likely to alter a person’s self. Treatments targeting memory fell somewhere in between. These contrasts suggest that the public differentiates deeply between physical and mental illnesses, often perceiving mental health interventions as more ethically and personally complicated. This nuance highlights societal stigmas and enduring divides in how brain-based disorders are conceptualized.
The implications of these findings resonate across multiple domains. For clinical practitioners, understanding patient and public expectations can guide more empathetic communication surrounding risks and benefits. For neurotechnology developers, insights into acceptability and perceived invasiveness can inform design choices and public engagement strategies. Moreover, regulatory bodies and policymakers may find this data crucial in shaping guidelines that balance innovation with respect for patient autonomy and social values. Ultimately, this nuanced understanding is critical to fostering ethical and equitable integration of neurotechnology into health care.
Beyond static perceptions, the researchers emphasize that risk and benefit evaluations occur within broader belief systems. To capture this complexity, the team plans to employ network analyses to unravel how different attitudes interconnect and collectively influence openness to neurotechnology. This approach promises to move beyond simple metrics toward a richer modeling of public cognition, which can better predict adoption patterns and highlight leverage points for education and outreach.
This study serves as a foundational step in filling the knowledge gap around public sentiment toward cutting-edge neurotechnologies. As these interventions become more prevalent and increasingly marketed for a variety of brain-based conditions, shaping positive, informed public perception will be essential in ensuring equitable access and minimizing misunderstandings or stigma. By revealing drivers of hesitancy and acceptance, this research catalyzes dialogue between scientists, clinicians, ethicists, patients, and society at large.
In sum, the findings underscore the delicate interplay between technology, symptom severity, and identity in shaping attitudes toward brain-based interventions. The relatively high acceptance of pills and non-invasive techniques contrasts sharply with the cautious stance toward invasive neuromodulation, cautioning against simplistic assumptions that benefit alone drives uptake. Instead, a holistic, patient-centered approach accounting for ethical, psychological, and social dimensions is vital as neurotechnology moves from lab and clinic into broader society.
As the field rapidly progresses, ongoing work linking empirical data with ethical considerations will help align innovation with patient values. This synergy promises to ultimately enhance how neurotechnologies are developed, communicated, and deployed—ushering in a new era of precision brain health that respects the complexity of human identity and experience.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Public perceptions of neurotechnologies used to target mood, memory, and motor symptoms
News Publication Date: 22-May-2025
References: Furrer R.A. et al., “Public perceptions of neurotechnologies used to target mood, memory, and motor symptoms” Device. DOI: 10.1016/j.device.2025.100804
