The technical grounding for this debate is advancing quickly. A twenty-year bibliometric analysis by Deng and colleagues traces how Vagus Nerve Stimulation for stroke rehabilitation has shifted from basic pathophysiological research toward translational studies centred on neuroplasticity, with non-invasive transauricular VNS emerging as a safer and more cost-effective alternative to surgical implantation. Complementing this, Kim and colleagues have designed a double-blinded randomised controlled pilot trial using the RecoveriX PRO system to test whether motor imagery-contingent neurofeedback outperforms sham feedback in subacute stroke rehabilitation. Their premise is that the closed loop connecting intention to feedback is essential for reorganising neural circuits, and the protocol uniquely combines EEG measures of functional connectivity with transcranial magnetic stimulation of cortical excitability to track brain reorganisation from cortex to end-effector. These clinical milestones matter far beyond medicine, because every capability that reads intention or decodes neural state sharpens the ethical and legal questions surrounding neurodata protection and cognitive liberty.

The collection also reaches into unexpected territory. Liang surveys how machine learning can decode and generate music from emotional and cognitive states, suggesting that algorithmic interpretations of “cognitive harmony” must account for cultural background and idiosyncratic image-thinking processes. Music, in this framing, becomes a bridge between human emotion and algorithmic interpretation, a demonstration that machine readings of the mind can extend even to the aesthetic domain.

But the most politically charged section of the collection confronts the high-profile entry of private companies into neurotechnology, most prominently Neuralink. Lavazza and colleagues acknowledge genuine technical achievements, including device miniaturisation and robotic implantation techniques, yet raise what they call a neuroskeptical alarm. The company’s practice of announcing progress on social media rather than in peer-reviewed journals, and its initial failure to register clinical trials in public databases such as ClinicalTrials.gov, deviates from established scientific norms and undermines the ability of the research community to evaluate safety and efficacy. While Neuralink never presented itself as a public or academic project, the editors note that this lack of transparency sets a dangerous precedent in which technological enthusiasm bypasses ethical accountability for the most intimate human-machine integration imaginable. The company’s stated ambition to move beyond therapy and “unlock human potential” in healthy individuals raises urgent questions about labour competition, positional advantage and the emergence of posthuman entities.

The regulatory analysis is equally pointed. Muhl and Andorno examine the prospect of workplace neurosurveillance, arguing that employers using EEG-based devices to monitor fatigue could inadvertently gain access to subconscious processing over which workers have no mindful control. Because of the inherent power imbalance in employment relationships, they contend that informed consent becomes a myth, since employees may feel coerced into accepting monitoring to avoid professional detriment. Muhl extends this argument by proposing that brain data be legally classified as a special category of sensitive data under the GDPR, since neural signals are often generated without any individual awareness that data is being produced or processed, and can reveal health status including neurological disorders.

Cybersecurity risks compound these legal gaps. Wilkins and colleagues identify a critical shortage of cybersecurity expertise within Institutional Review Boards, whose pre-market safety focus is inadequate for implantable brain-computer interfaces that may induce neural and personality changes unfolding over years and requiring lifelong follow-up. They describe risks unique to BCIs, including “neuronal flooding” and “jamming,” in which a malicious hacker could perform neuronal cyberattacks that alter a user’s behaviour and neural activity while stealing intimate personal information, concluding that the risk-benefit ratio of BCI research is becoming increasingly difficult to quantify.

Mood-altering technologies attract their own scrutiny. Kamenjasevic examines mood enhancement technologies and finds that legal systems, though flexible, lack any precise definition of “data concerning mood,” leaving users vulnerable to workplace monitoring or political exploitation. He argues such data must be recognised as a special category of personal data to prevent chilling effects on freedom of thought, and that enhancement products should be prescribed by healthcare professionals rather than sold as unregulated consumer items, since mood is a long-lasting, private and internal state distinct from spontaneous emotion, and labelling specific affective states as unwanted or non-normal carries profound social risk.

The collection’s most radical proposals come from its sociological wing. Borbón introduces the concept of neuro-abolitionism, arguing that neuroscience’s insights into the deterministic or random nature of behaviour undermine the free-will assumptions underpinning retributive criminal law. He calls for a shift toward restorative justice and, provocatively, a long-term abolition of the prison system, contending that current penal regimes ignore structural causes of crime such as marginalisation and poverty, effectively making the state an accomplice to deviant behaviour. Dezso, meanwhile, proposes the concept of “co-ability,” in which the potency of any entity, biological or artificial, is amplified through distributed network relationships rather than inherent in the individual, advocating a shift from a visuocentric to a motocentric understanding of perception in which tangible 3D-printed prototypes bridge the gap between abstract data and physical experience.

The ethical anchor of the collection is the Berlin conference summary by Buthut and colleagues. Its participants reached a clear consensus: bidirectional BCI technologies should remain strictly focused on medical needs, with a proposed ban on implantation in healthy populations until long-term well-being and cognitive liberty can be guaranteed. The summary also popularised a memorable term coined by Niels Birbaumer, “oblomovization,” describing lethargy and passivity induced by over-reliance on neurotechnology for daily functions. Participants warned of existential dependency when a device becomes integrated into a patient’s sense of self, and demanded a right to mental self-determination alongside a global regulatory framework similar to the one recently issued by UNESCO, balancing rapid innovation against human rights and dignity.

The editors close by flagging the unsolved mysteries at the heart of neuroprivacy. What are the post-trial responsibilities of manufacturers when a device becomes part of someone’s identity but the company ceases operations? Who decides what counts as unlocking human potential rather than distorting behaviour? And how can the dual-use dynamic, driven by media hype and military interest, be kept from dictating global policy? Their answer is transdisciplinary, even diplomatic: neuroprivacy cannot be treated as a series of technical hurdles, because it is a fundamental challenge to human dignity demanding a cohesive legal and ethical framework spanning neuroscience, computing, law and ethics. As consumer neurodevices approach the market, the message is blunt. Protect the sanctity of the mind first, then unlock the hybrid potentials of the future.

Subject of Research: Neuroprivacy, brain-machine interfaces and the ethics of neurotechnology in the era of artificial intelligence

Article Title: Editorial: Socio-legal, ethical, technical and medical considerations on neuroprivacy and brain-machine interaction technologies in the era of A.I.

Article References: Riva, G. M., Tiribelli, S., Ziccardi, G., Soekadar, S. R., Colantonio, S., & Solanas, A. (2026). Editorial: Socio-legal, ethical, technical and medical considerations on neuroprivacy and brain-machine interaction technologies in the era of A.I.. Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 8, Article 1836498. https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2026.1836498

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fhumd.2026.1836498

Keywords: neuroprivacy, brain-computer interfaces, neurotechnology, artificial intelligence, cognitive liberty, GDPR, neural data protection, Neuralink, neuroethics, mental self-determination, cybersecurity, hybrid mind