Neurotechnologies: Are Our Children’s Minds Being Monitored?

With the recent developments in digital platforms and artificial intelligence (AI), the use of these tools in the field of education is booming. The new field of neurotechnologies is about to deeply upset educational methods.

[Article issu de The Conversation, écrit par Catherine Vidal, Neurobiologiste, membre du Comité d’éthique de l’Inserm, Inserm]

Their application in the field of education makes it possible the measure in real time of the degree of attention and the emotional states of students, in order to improve their learning performance.

The convergence between neurotechnologies, digital and AI in education is looming. These prospects ask ethical questions which are the subject of a recent report by the Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM).

When neurotechnologies leave the medical field

Neurotechnologies come from research for medical aims. They prove to be particularly efficient in human clinic, in particular to compensate for certain physical and mental handicaps. Improving the symptoms of Parkinson's disease through intracerebral stimulation electrodes is an illustration.

The establishment of electronic fleas in the brain to overcome cognitive deficits and increasing brain capacity is the subject of intense research. One of the most publicized projects is the neuralink implant of the billionaire Elon Musk.

Other applications of neurotechnologies leave the medical field and concern “personal well-being” and the surveillance of the various mental states. Private companies already market light portable (wireless) portable devices capable of recording brain waves (by electroencephalography or EEG) as headsets or banners for recreational and well-being (video games, stress management, sleep , concentration, etc.) but also monitoring headsets for vigilance states (for vehicle drivers, chain workers, soldiers, etc.).

Recent innovations relate to goggles or intra-ear sensors, of easier use than helmets, to record brain waves by EEG, eye movements, heart rate, etc.

Neurofeedback: Training by recording brain waves

For the past ten years, neurotechnologies have been the subject of many research aimed at optimizing learning capacities. Experiments relate to two types of approaches: “Neurofeedback” and “transcranial brain stimulations”.

Neurofeedback is a brain training practice based on the recording of brain waves (by EEG) which are brought to the attention of the subject (feedback), which uses this information to learn how to modulate your own brain waves and control your level of vigilance.

Neurofeedback is particularly useful in certain pathological situations, for example in paralyzed patients to allow them to control an exoskeleton or to control a cursor on a computer screen in order to communicate with the outside. Research is also underway to explore therapeutic tracks in neurological and also psychiatric conditions (depression, insomnia, epilepsy, post-AVC deficit, etc.).

Unconvincing studies in attention disorders (ADHD)

A field of application of the very studied neurofeedback concerns attention deficit disorders with or without hyperactivity (ADHD). But according to recent publications which take stock of these studies, it appears that the experiments are mainly tainted with methodological biases: absences of randomized double -blind trials and witness groups, low staff of participants, neurofeedback protocols non -standard , etc. These biases do not allow us to conclude on the reality of the therapeutic efficiency of neurofeedback in ADHD.

For these reasons, in France, neurofeedback does not appear in the therapeutic recommendations of the High Authority for Health (HAS). The North American Academy of Pediatrics, which was favorable to Neurofeedback in 2011, was no longer in 2019 in the revision of its framing note.

The same situation prevails about transcranial stimulation for which the expected effects of “intellectual doping” have not been demonstrated, due to the lack of studies carried out rigorously.

It is striking to note the discrepancy between the lack of scientific validation of the effects of these neurotechnologies on learning and the flourishing market on the internet of school “coaching” practiced at home or in private offices. In France, start-ups, self-proclaimed “institutes”, “cabinets” or “clinics”, propose what they call “solutions” to increase cognitive performance thanks to the neurofeedback, in particular by targeting children with neurodevelopment disorders ( ADHD, dys disorders).

Their advertising speeches are based on scientific arguments likely to abuse, not only, the general public, parents, but also non -informed caregivers and educational staff. It should be noted that the commercial exploitation of neurotechnologies outside the medical framework escapes the regulations on medical devices and the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

Experiments in school, the United States and China

Until recently, brain studies in learning situations were carried out outside the school framework. Since 2019, research has been postponed to the concrete educational environment of primary, secondary and universities. The United States and China are the two most advanced countries in this area.

Many experiments are carried out in North American private schools in partnership with headset manufacturers to record students' brain waves. The objective is to optimize learning by helping teachers identify inattentive students who need additional help.

In China, educational projects involving AI are deployed on a large scale in public schools to control students' learning, especially through the interpretation of emotions detected by webcam. The use of EEG helmets was temporarily stopped after a wave of criticism in the Chinese state media and on social networks.

Protect the brain and the freedom to think of children

The convergence between neurotechnologies, digital and AI in education will be at work in the near future. Among the expected benefits, the algorithmic processing of brain data by AI should make it possible to analyze more precisely mental states and cognitive capacities. These data could be used to define learning conditions best suited to the profile of each student. Children with attention disorders would be the first beneficiaries.

The negative side is the possibility of access to this data by a third party, with the risk of interfere with the intimacy of the child's psychic life and influencing it for other purposes than academic success. Brain data are sources of information subject to lust for advertising, ideological or other objectives (insurance, companies, police, cybercrime, etc.).

In addition, the association of neurotechnology and digital tools poses unresolved questions concerning their impact on the brain, the cognitive development of children and the risks for their health. Interventions, such as neurofeedback and transcranial stimulation, could potentially disturb the dynamics of neural circuits formation at certain so -called “critical” periods of brain development, with cognitive (memory, reasoning) and emotional effects (self control).

Another subject of vigilance is that of “neuronormization” by interventions on the brain of children (conditioning by Neurofeedback, stimulations) to make it compliant with “standard” standards.

A related potential risk is “neurodiscrimination” based on “neural signatures” which would not comply with the majority brain standards, these being defined from a sample of rich countries not representative of neurodiversity specific to all Human beings. Their use by sectarian groups or non -democratic governments is a potential threat.

To a regulatory framework based on “neuro-rights”

All these questions raise major ethical and legal challenges which are the subject of mobilization of international institutions (UNESCO, OECD, Council of Europe) which call to develop regulatory frameworks based on “neuro-rights”, defined as The fundamental rights of any individual with physical and mental integrity, to the deprived of mental life, to freedom of thinking.

In France, the Inserm Ethics Committee takes over these recommendations and calls for developing a code of conduct for education staff to anticipate the use of neurotechnologies in the school framework. Such a code should make as a principle that these technologies should not replace human intervention, nor infringe the rights and freedoms of children and adolescents whose autonomy and “neuro-right” must be protected.