Skip to main content Accessibility help

Neuroprosthetic Speech: The Ethical Significance of Accuracy, Control and Pragmatics



Neuroprosthetic speech devices are an emerging technology that can offer the possibility of communication to those who are unable to speak. Patients with ‘locked in syndrome,’ aphasia, or other such pathologies can use covert speech—vividly imagining saying something without actual vocalization—to trigger neural controlled systems capable of synthesizing the speech they would have spoken, but for their impairment.

We provide an analysis of the mechanisms and outputs involved in speech mediated by neuroprosthetic devices. This analysis provides a framework for accounting for the ethical significance of accuracy, control, and pragmatic dimensions of prosthesis-mediated speech. We first examine what it means for the output of the device to be accurate, drawing a distinction between technical accuracy on the one hand and semantic accuracy on the other. These are conceptual notions of accuracy.

Both technical and semantic accuracy of the device will be necessary (but not yet sufficient) for the user to have sufficient control over the device. Sufficient control is an ethical consideration: we place high value on being able to express ourselves when we want and how we want. Sufficient control of a neural speech prosthesis requires that a speaker can reliably use their speech apparatus as they want to, and can expect their speech to authentically represent them. We draw a distinction between two relevant features which bear on the question of whether the user has sufficient control: voluntariness of the speech and the authenticity of the speech. These can come apart: the user might involuntarily produce an authentic output (perhaps revealing private thoughts) or might voluntarily produce an inauthentic output (e.g., when the output is not semantically accurate). Finally, we consider the role of the interlocutor in interpreting the content and purpose of the communication.

These three ethical dimensions raise philosophical questions about the nature of speech, the level of control required for communicative accuracy, and the nature of ‘accuracy’ with respect to both natural and prosthesis-mediated speech.



Hide All

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the BrainCom Project, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (732032). Additionally, Dr Pierre Mégevand, from Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (167836).



Hide All


1. Bocquelet, F, Hueber, T, Girin, L, Chabardès, S, Yvert, B. Key considerations in designing a speech brain-computer interface. Journal of Physiology-Paris 2016;110:392401.

2. Bocquelet, F, Hueber, T, Girin, L, Savariaux, C, Yvert, B. Real-time control of an articulatory-based speech synthesizer for brain computer interfaces. PLOS Computational Biology 2016;12:e1005119.

3. Chakrabarti, S, Sandberg, HM, Brumberg, JS, Krusienski, DJ. Progress in speech decoding from the electrocorticogram. Biomedical Engineering Letters 2015;5:1021.

4. Mugler, EM, Patton, JL, Flint, RD, Wright, ZA, Schuele, SU, Rosenow, J, Shih, JJ, Krusienski, DJ, Slutzky, MW. Direct classification of all american english phonemes using signals from functional speech motor cortex. Journal of Neural Engineering 2014;11:035015.–2560/11/3/035015.

5. Schmitt, BM, Münte, TF, Kutas, M. Electrophysiological estimates of the time course of semantic and phonological encoding during implicit picture naming. Psychophysiology 2000;37:473–84.

6. Morin, A. Self-talk and self-awareness: On the nature of the relation. Journal of Mind & Behavior 1993;14:223–34.

7. Price, CJ. A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. NeuroImage 2012;62:816–47.

8. Seeck, M, Schomer, D, Niedermeyer, E. Intracranial monitoring: depth, subdural, and foramen ovale electrodes. Neupsy Key; available at (last accessed 12 Sept 2017).

9. Leuthardt, E, Pei, X, Breshears, J, Gaona, C, Sharma, M, Freudenburg, Z, Barbour, D, Schalk, G. Temporal evolution of gamma activity in human cortex during an overt and covert word repetition task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2012;99:16.

10. Mesgarani, N, Cheung, C, Johnson, K, Chang, EF. Phonetic feature encoding in human superior temporal gyrus. Science 2014;343:1006–10.

11. Bouchard, KE, Mesgarani, N, Johnson, K, Chang, EF. Functional organization of human sensorimotor cortex for speech articulation. Nature 2013;495:327–32.

12. Pasley, BN, David, SV, Mesgarani, N, Flinker, A, Shamma, SA, Crone, NE, Knight, RT, Chang, EF. Reconstructing speech from human auditory cortex. PLOS Biology 2012;10:e1001251.

13. See note 7, Price 2012, at 816–47.

14. Martin, S, Millán, J del R, Knight, RT, Pasley, BN. The use of intracranial recordings to decode human language: Challenges and opportunities. Brain and Language 2016 (in press).

15. Ikeda, S, Shibata, T, Nakano, N, Okada, R, Tsuyuguchi, N, Ikeda, K, Kato, A. Neural decoding of single vowels during covert articulation using electrocorticography. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2014;125:18.

16. Pei, X, Barbour, D, Leuthardt, EC, Schalk, G. Decoding vowels and consonants in spoken and imagined words using electrocorticographic signals in humans. Journal of Neural Engineering. 2011;8:046028.

17. Martin, S, Brunner, P, Iturrate, I, Millán, J del R, Schalk, G, Knight, RT, Pasley, BN. Word pair classification during imagined speech using direct brain recordings. Scientific Reports 2016;6:srep25803.

18. Wolpaw, JR, Birbaumer, N, McFarland, DJ, Pfurtscheller, G, Vaughan, TM. Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control. Clinical Neurophysiology 2002;113:767–91.

19. Chaudhary, U, Birbaumer, N, Ramos-Murguialday, A. Brain–computer interfaces for communication and rehabilitation. Nature Reviews Neurology 2016;12:513–25.

20. Geva, S, Jones, PS, Crinion, JT, Price, CJ, Baron, J-C, Warburton, EA. The neural correlates of inner speech defined by voxel-based lesion–symptom mapping. Brain 2011;134:3071–82.

21. Jarosiewicz, B, Sarma, AA, Bacher, D, Masse, NY, Simeral, JD, Sorice, B, et al. Virtual typing by people with tetraplegia using a self-calibrating intracortical brain-computer interface. Science Translational Medicine 2015;7:313ra179.

22. See note 1, Bocquelet et al. 2016, at 392–401.

23. Guenther, FH, Brumberg, JS, Wright, EJ, Nieto-Castanon, A, Tourville, JA, Panko, M, Law, R, Siebert, SA, Bartels, JL, Andreasen, DS, Ehirim, P, Mao, H, Kennedy, PR. A wireless brain-machine interface for real-time speech synthesis. PLOS ONE 2009;4:e8218.

24. Birbaumer, N, Cohen, LG. Brain–computer interfaces: Communication and restoration of movement in paralysis. The Journal of Physiology 2007;579:621–36.

25. Singer, P. Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1972:229–43.

26. Poldrack, RA, Farah, MJ. Progress and challenges in probing the human brain. Nature 2015;526:371–9.

27. Winner, L. Technologies as forms of life. In: Kaplan, DM, ed. Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield; 2004, at 103–13.

28. See note 10, Mesgarani et al. 2014, at 1006–10.

29. Garud, R, Rappa, MA. A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organization Science 1994;5:344–62.

30. Pulvermüller, F, Huss, M, Kherif, F, Martin, FM del P, Hauk, O, Shtyrov, Y. Motor cortex maps articulatory features of speech sounds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2006;103:7865–70.

31. Zheng, ZZ, Munhall, KG, Johnsrude, IS. Functional overlap between regions involved in speech perception and in monitoring one’s own voice during speech production. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2010;22:17701781.

32. Carruthers, P. On knowing your own beliefs: A representationalist account. In: New Essays on Belief. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013, at 145–65.

33. Clark, A. Language, embodiment, and the cognitive niche. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2006;10:370374.

34. Farahany, NA. A neurological foundation for freedom. The Stanford Technology Law Review 2012;4:1125.

35. See note 17, Martin et al. 2016; 6:srep25803.

36. See note 21, Jarosiewicz et al. 2015;7:313ra179.

37. Ryan, RM, Deci, EL. Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality 2006;74:1557–86, at 1573–4.

38. DeGrazia, D. Enhancement technologies and human identity. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2005;30:261283.

39. Erler, A, Hope, T. Mental disorder and the concept of authenticity. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 2014;21:219–32.

40. Pugh, J, Maslen, H, Savulescu, J. Deep brain stimulation, authenticity and value. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2017;26(4):640–57.

41. Fischer, JM, Ravizza, M. Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998, at 221.

42. Olechowski, A, Eppinger, SD, Joglekar, N. Technology readiness levels at 40: A study of state-of-the-art use, challenges, and opportunities. In 2015 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET). 2015:20842094.

43. Schooler, JW, Engstler-Schooler, TY. Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology 1990;22:3671.

44. Alderson-Day, B, Fernyhough, C. Inner speech: Development, cognitive functions, phenomenology, and neurobiology. Psychological Bulletin 2015;141:931–65, at 939.

45. Perfect, TJ, Hunt, LJ, Harris, CM. Verbal overshadowing in voice recognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2002;16:973980. <>.

46. See note 10, Mesgarani et al. 2014, at 1006–10.

47. See note 44, Alderson-Day, Fernyhough 2015, at 931–65

48. Grice, P. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1993, at 26.

49. Davidson, D. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001, at 197.

50. Sharp, D, Wasserman, D. Deep brain stimulation, historicism, and moral responsibility. Neuroethics 2016;9:173–85, at 175.

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the BrainCom Project, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (732032). Additionally, Dr Pierre Mégevand, from Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (167836).


Neuroprosthetic Speech: The Ethical Significance of Accuracy, Control and Pragmatics



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed