You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Proactive Ethical Design for Neuroengineering, Assistive and Rehabilitation Technologies: the Cybathlon Lesson
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12984-017-0325-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcello Ienca, Reto W. Kressig, Fabrice Jotterand, Bernice Elger |
| Abstract |
Rapid advancements in rehabilitation science and the widespread application of engineering techniques are opening the prospect of a new phase of clinical and commercial maturity for Neuroengineering, Assistive and Rehabilitation Technologies (NARTs). As the field enters this new phase, there is an urgent need to address and anticipate the ethical implications associated with novel technological opportunities, clinical solutions, and social applications. In this paper we review possible approaches to the ethics of NART, and propose a framework for ethical design and development, which we call the Proactive Ethical Design (PED) framework. A viable ethical framework for neuroengineering, assistive and rehabilitation technology should be characterized by the convergence of user-centered and value-sensitive approaches to product design through a proactive mode of ethical evaluation. We propose four basic normative requirements for the realization of this framework: minimization of power imbalances, compliance with biomedical ethics, translationality and social awareness. The aims and values of the CYBATHLON competition provide an operative model of this ethical framework and could drive an ethical shift in neuroengineering and rehabilitation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Germany | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 88 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 7% |
| Professor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 31 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 13% |
| Engineering | 10 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 21 | 24% |
| Unknown | 31 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,526,116
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#120
of 1,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,567
of 326,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#5
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.