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 set to profoundly disrupt educational methods.

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

The convergence between neurotechnologies, digital technology and AI in education is emerging. These prospects raise ethical questions that 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 are the result of medical research . They have proven to be particularly effective in human clinical practice, particularly in compensating for certain physical and mental disabilities. The improvement of Parkinson’s disease symptoms using intracerebral stimulation electrodes is an illustration of this.

Implanting microchips into the brain to compensate for cognitive deficits and increase brain capacity is the subject of intense research. One of the most publicized projects is billionaire Elon Musk ‘s Neuralink implant .

Other applications of neurotechnologies go beyond the medical field and concern “personal well-being” and the monitoring of different mental states . Private companies are already marketing lightweight (wireless) portable devices capable of recording brain waves (by electroencephalography or EEG) such as headsets or headbands for recreational and well-being purposes (video games, stress management, sleep, concentration, etc.) but also headsets for monitoring states of alertness (for vehicle drivers, assembly line workers, military personnel, etc.).

Recent innovations include glasses or in-ear sensors, which are easier to use than headphones, to record brain waves via EEG, eye movements, heart rate, etc.

Neurofeedback: training by recording brain waves

For the past ten years, neurotechnologies have been the subject of much research aimed at optimizing learning abilities. The experiments focus on two types of approaches: “neurofeedback” and “transcranial brain stimulation”.

Neurofeedback is a brain training practice based on the recording of brain waves (by EEG) that are made known to the subject ( feedback ), who uses this information to learn to modulate his own brain waves and control his level of alertness.

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

Unconvincing studies in attention deficit disorder (ADHD)

A much-studied field of application of neurofeedback concerns attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ). However, recent publications that review these studies show that the experiments are mostly tainted by methodological biases: absence of double-blind randomized trials and control groups, small numbers of participants, non-standard neurofeedback protocols, etc. These biases do not allow us to conclude on the reality of the therapeutic efficacy of neurofeedback in ADHD.

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

The same situation prevails regarding transcranial stimulations for which the expected effects of “intellectual doping” have not been demonstrated, due to the lack of rigorously conducted studies.

It is striking to note the gap between the lack of scientific validation of the effects of these neurotechnologies on learning and the flourishing market on the Internet for academic “coaching” practiced at home or in private practices. In France, start-ups, self-proclaimed “institutes”, “practices” or “clinics”, offer what they call “solutions” to increase cognitive performance through neurofeedback, targeting in particular children with neurodevelopmental disorders (ADHD, dys disorders ).

Their advertising speeches are based on arguments of scientific appearance likely to mislead not only the general public, parents, but also uninformed healthcare and educational personnel. It should be emphasized that the commercial exploitation of neurotechnologies outside the medical framework escapes the regulation on medical devices and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Experiments in schools in the United States and China

Until recently, studies on the brain in learning situations were conducted outside of the school setting. Since 2019, research has been brought back to the concrete educational environment of primary, secondary schools and universities. The United States and China are the two most advanced countries in this field.

A number of experiments are being conducted in North American private schools in partnership with headset manufacturers to record students’ brain waves. The goal is to optimize learning by helping teachers identify inattentive students who need extra help.

In China, educational projects involving AI are being deployed on a large scale in public schools to monitor students’ learning, including through the interpretation of emotions detected by webcam. The use of EEG headsets has been temporarily halted after a wave of criticism in Chinese state media and on social networks .

Protecting children’s brains and freedom of thought

The convergence between neurotechnologies, digital technology 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 more precisely analyze mental states and cognitive abilities. This 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 interfering with the privacy of the child’s psychological life and influencing it for purposes other than academic success. Brain data are sources of information subject to covetousness for advertising, ideological or other objectives (insurance, businesses, police, cybercrime, etc.).

In addition, the combination of neurotechnology and digital tools raises unresolved questions regarding their impact on the brain, children’s cognitive development, and health risks. Interventions such as neurofeedback and transcranial stimulation could potentially disrupt the dynamics of neural circuit formation at so-called “critical” periods of brain development, with adverse cognitive (memory, reasoning) and emotional (self-control) effects.

Another area of ​​concern is that of “neuronormalization” through interventions on the brains of children (neurofeedback conditioning, stimulation) to make them conform to “standard” norms.

A related potential risk is “neurodiscrimination” based on “neural signatures” that do not conform to majority brain norms, which are defined from a sample of subjects from wealthy countries that are not representative of the neurodiversity of all human beings. Their use by sectarian groups or undemocratic governments is a potential threat.

Towards a regulatory framework based on “neuro-rights”

All these questions raise major ethical and legal challenges which are the subject of mobilisations by international institutions ( Unesco , OECD , Council of Europe) which call for the development of regulatory frameworks based on “neuro-rights” , defined as the fundamental rights of every individual to physical and mental integrity, to the privacy of mental life, to freedom of thought.

In France, the Inserm ethics committee has taken up these recommendations and called for the development of a code of conduct for education personnel to anticipate the use of neurotechnologies in the school setting. Such a code should establish as a principle that these technologies must not replace human intervention, nor infringe on the rights and freedoms of children and adolescents whose autonomy and “neuro-rights” must be protected.

Author Bio: Catherine Vidal is a Neurobiologist and a member of the Inserm Ethics Committee at Inserm