Neuroimaging technologies such as brain–computer interfaces and neurofeedback have evolved rapidly as new tools for cognitive neuroscience and as potential clinical interventions. However, along with these developments, concern has grown based on the fear of the potential misuse of neurotechnology. In October 2021, Chile became the first country to include neurorights in its Constitution. The present article is divided into two parts. In the first section, we describe the path followed by neurorights that led to its inclusion in the Chilean Constitution, and the neurotechnologies usually involved in neurorights discussions. In the second part, we discuss two potential problems of neurorights. We begin by pointing out some epistemological concerns regarding neurorights, mainly referring to the ambiguity of the concepts used in neurolegislations, the difficult relationship between neuroscience and politics and the weak reasons for urgency in legislating. We then describe the dangers of overprotective laws in medical research, based on the detrimental effect of recent legislation in Chile and the potential risk posed by neurorights to the benefits of neuroscience development. This article aims to engage with the scientific community interested in neurotechnology and neurorights in an interdisciplinary reflection of the potential consequences of neurorights. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Neurofeedback: new territories and neurocognitive mechanisms of endogenous neuromodulation’.

While earlier Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) studies have mostly focused on modulating specific brain regions or signals, new developments in pattern classification of brain states are enabling real-time decoding and modulation of an entire functional network. The present study proposes a new method for real-time pattern classification and neurofeedback of brain states from electroencephalographic (EEG) signals. It involves the creation of a fused classification model based on the method of Common Spatial Patterns (CSPs) from data of several healthy individuals. The subject-independent model is then used to classify EEG data in real-time and provide feedback to new individuals. In a series of offline experiments involving training and testing of the classifier with individual data from 27 healthy subjects, a mean classification accuracy of 75.30% was achieved, demonstrating that the classification system at hand can reliably decode two types of imagery used in our experiments, i.e., happy emotional imagery and motor imagery. In a subsequent experiment it is shown that the classifier can be used to provide neurofeedback to new subjects, and that these subjects learn to “match” their brain pattern to that of the fused classification model in a few days of neurofeedback training. This finding can have important implications for future studies on neurofeedback and its clinical applications on neuropsychiatric disorders.

One of the most important and early impairments in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is the abnormal visual processing of human faces. This deficit has been associated with hypoactivation of the fusiform face area (FFA), one of the main hubs of the face-processing network. Neurofeedback based on real-time fMRI (rtfMRI-NF) is a technique that allows the self-regulation of circumscribed brain regions, leading to specific neural modulation and behavioral changes. The aim of the present study was to train participants with ASD to achieve up-regulation of the FFA using rtfMRI-NF, to investigate the neural effects of FFA up-regulation in ASD. For this purpose, three groups of volunteers with normal I.Q. and fluent language were recruited to participate in a rtfMRI-NF protocol of eight training runs in 2 days. Five subjects with ASD participated as part of the experimental group and received contingent feedback to up-regulate bilateral FFA. Two control groups, each one with three participants with typical development (TD), underwent the same protocol: one group with contingent feedback and the other with sham feedback. Whole-brain and functional connectivity analysis using each fusiform gyrus as independent seeds were carried out. The results show that individuals with TD and ASD can achieve FFA up-regulation with contingent feedback. RtfMRI-NF in ASD produced more numerous and stronger short-range connections among brain areas of the ventral visual stream and an absence of the long-range connections to insula and inferior frontal gyrus, as observed in TD subjects. Recruitment of inferior frontal gyrus was observed in both groups during FAA up-regulation. However, insula and caudate nucleus were only recruited in subjects with TD. These results could be explained from a neurodevelopment perspective as a lack of the normal specialization of visual processing areas, and a compensatory mechanism to process visual information of faces. RtfMRI-NF emerges as a potential tool to study visual processing network in ASD, and to explore its clinical potential.

Sin embargo, como toda intervención médica, las neurotecnologías pudieran tener la capacidad de generar aplicaciones perjudiciales, debido a lo cual, han surgido voces que buscan cautelar el buen uso de estas capacidades. De esta forma, surgen los neuroderechos como los “nuevos derechos humanos que protegen la privacidad e integridad mental y psíquica, tanto consciente como inconsciente, de las personas del uso abusivo de las neurotecnologías”¹. La idea de los neuroderechos es proteger, en un potencial usuario, el derecho a la identidad y autonomía personal, el derecho al libre albedrío y a la autodeterminación, el derecho al acceso equitativo a la mejora cognitiva (para evitar producir inequidades), entre otras². Esta iniciativa nació de algunos neurocientíficos, liderados por el Dr. Rafael Yuste, preocupados de que las neurotecnologías, en particular las “Interfaces Cerebro-Computadora” y la “Inteligencia Artificial” pudieran ser usadas abusivamente. Ello teniendo en consideración que estas tecnologías están desarrollando progresivamente la capacidad de decodificar la actividad cerebral (“leer la mente”), y potencialmente modificar ciertas funciones cerebrales². Así, el 16 de diciembre 2020, en primer trámite constitucional en sala del senado, se aprobó las ideas matrices del proyecto reforma al Artículo 19 N°1 de la Constitución (Boletín N° 13.827-19) y el proyecto de Ley Neuroderechos (Boletín N°13.828-19), pasando ambos proyectos a la comisión Desafíos de Futuro para la discusión en particular de cada una de sus disposiciones^1,3.