Background/aim: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the capability of computational systems to perform tasks that require human-like cognitive functions, such as reasoning, learning, and decision-making. Unlike human intelligence, AI does not involve sentience or consciousness but focuses on data processing, pattern recognition, and prediction through algorithms and learned experiences. In healthcare including neuroscience, AI is valuable for improving prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and surveillance.Methods: This qualitative study aimed to investigate the acceptability of AI in Medicine (AIIM) and to elucidate any technical and scientific, as well as social and ethical issues involved. Twenty-five doctors from various specialties were carefully interviewed regarding their views, experience, knowledge, and attitude toward AI in healthcare.Results: Content analysis confirmed the key ethical principles involved: confidentiality, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Honesty was the least invoked principle. A thematic analysis established four salient topic areas, i.e., advantages, risks, restrictions, and precautions. Alongside the advantages, there were many limitations and risks. The study revealed a perceived need for precautions to be embedded in healthcare policies to counter the risks discussed. These precautions need to be multi-dimensional.Conclusion: The authors conclude that AI should be rationally guided, function transparently, and produce impartial results. It should assist human healthcare professionals collaboratively. This kind of AI will permit fairer, more innovative healthcare which benefits patients and society whilst preserving human dignity. It can foster accuracy and precision in medical practice and reduce the workload by assisting physicians during clinical tasks. AIIM that functions transparently and respects the public interest can be an inspiring scientific innovation for humanity.

This empirical study has aimed to understand the diverging neural patterns while listening to two versions of the same music excerpt. The difference between these two versions is related to their tempo. The change in tempo caused one to be perceived as dramatic (low tempo version) and the other as cheerful (high tempo version). There were 24 participants who took part in this experimental study who have provided oral and written consent prior to the study. The participants listened to these excerpts each for 40 seconds. Meanwhile, their EEG/ERP signals, GSR/PR signals, and eye-movements were recorded via highly portable systems. The obtained results indicate that there are different patterns of neural activation. This difference has mainly been observed by the positiveness measure known as frontal alpha asymmetry (FAA) in the relevant literature. To be more specific, the calculated positiveness values have been significantly higher for the high tempo version than the low tempo version. This finding has been supported by the subjective ratings that were collected just after the experiment. Overall, this empirical study can be accepted as a proof of concept for the direct use of neuroimaging methods regarding the objective measures related to music.