Covid-19 Research

Review Article

From Brain Evidence to Neurorights: Rethinking Criminal Responsibility in the Age of Neurotechnology

Journal of Biomedical Research & Environmental Sciences article abstract with citation details, DOI, publication dates, subject areas, full text links, and references.

View DOI Submit Manuscript

Article Details

Publication record, authors, dates, abstract, and full text access.

Open Access
Article Type Review Article
Subject Medicine Group
OCLC JBRES Record
Mia P
Issue: Volume7-Issue2
Pages: 1-26
Received: 2025-12-05
Accepted: 2026-02-18
Published: 2026-02-18

Abstract

The article, which raises never-before-bioethical and legal questions, is a consideration of the manner in which rapid advances in neurotechnology are reshaping criminal law. Neurotechnology is changing how we think about free will, criminal intent, and personal responsibility. This also includes devices that observe or influence neural systems. New ways to collect evidence and to interfere with the legal systems of the nations of the world, through such means as neuromodulation, neuroprosthetics, and brain-machine interfaces, etc., are being put forth. Separately, the related neurological and genetic information raises challenging issues concerning consent, mental privacy, autonomy, and the ethical use of brain data in the criminal justice system. Uncertainty, human rights safeguards, non-coercion and non-manipulation principles, and the quality assurance of neurotechnological evidences are all part of the main legal questions. It makes the case that robust legal frameworks fostering innovation, while holding accountability, transparency, and mental integrity, will be critical. In so doing, it also calls for international collaboration and ethical oversight as well as further engagement with the public on issues relating to the responsible use of neurotechnology. And to top it all off, a multidisciplinary, rights-based approach is crucial to ensuring that neurotechnology continues to advance justice and respect for human dignity within criminal justice systems globally.

FullText HTML FullText PDF DOI: 10.37871/jbres2268 Crossmark

Certificate of Publication

Certificate of Publication

Copyright

© 2026 Mia P. Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 Creative CommonsAttribution

How to cite this article

Mia P. From Brain Evidence to Neurorights: Rethinking Criminal Responsibility in the Age of Neurotechnology. J Biomed Res Environ Sci. 2026 Feb 18; 7(2): 26. Doi: 10.37871/jbres2268

Subject area(s)

PsychiatryNeurology

References

  1. Tesink V, Douglas T, Forsberg L, Ligthart S, Meynen G. Right to mental integrity and neurotechnologies: implications of the extended mind thesis. J Med Ethics. 2024 Sep 20;50(10):656-663. doi: 10.1136/jme-2023-109645. PMID: 38408854; PMCID: PMC11503137.
  2. The evolving neurotechnology landscape. Geneva Academy. 2023.
  3. Bhidayasiri R. The grand challenge at the frontiers of neurotechnology and its emerging clinical applications. Front Neurol. 2024 Jan 17;15:1314477. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1314477. PMID: 38299015; PMCID: PMC10827995.
  4. Krauss JK, Lipsman N, Aziz T, Boutet A, Brown P, Chang JW, Davidson B, Grill WM, Hariz MI, Horn A, Schulder M, Mammis A, Tass PA, Volkmann J, Lozano AM. Technology of deep brain stimulation: current status and future directions. Nat Rev Neurol. 2021 Feb;17(2):75-87. doi: 10.1038/s41582-020-00426-z. Epub 2020 Nov 26. PMID: 33244188; PMCID: PMC7116699.
  5. Haselager P. Privacy and brain-computer interfaces: Method and interim results. Neuroethics. 2017;10(2):285-294.
  6. Carlson ML, Archibald DJ, Dabade TS, Gifford RH, Neff BA, Beatty CW, Barrs DM, Driscoll CL. Prevalence and timing of individual cochlear implant electrode failures. Otol Neurotol. 2010 Aug;31(6):893-8. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181d2d697. PMID: 20142796.
  7. Cochlear implant - An overview. ScienceDirect Cochlear Implants. (n.d.).
  8. Chen J, Volkmann J, Ip CW. A framework for translational therapy development in deep brain stimulation. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2024 Nov 8;10(1):216. doi: 10.1038/s41531-024-00829-5. Erratum in: NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2025 Mar 4;11(1):40. doi: 10.1038/s41531-025-00890-8. PMID: 39516465; PMCID: PMC11549317.
  9. Ning S, Jorfi M, Patel SR, Kim DY, Tanzi RE. Neurotechnological Approaches to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease. Front Neurosci. 2022 Mar 24;16:854992. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.854992. PMID: 35401082; PMCID: PMC8989850.
  10. Yuan H, Li Y, Yang J, Li H, Yang Q, Guo C, Zhu S, Shu X. State of the Art of Non-Invasive Electrode Materials for Brain-Computer Interface. Micromachines (Basel). 2021 Dec 8;12(12):1521. doi: 10.3390/mi12121521. PMID: 34945371; PMCID: PMC8705666.
  11. Woods AJ, Antal A, Bikson M, Boggio PS, Brunoni AR, Celnik P, Cohen LG, Fregni F, Herrmann CS, Kappenman ES, Knotkova H, Liebetanz D, Miniussi C, Miranda PC, Paulus W, Priori A, Reato D, Stagg C, Wenderoth N, Nitsche MA. A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016 Feb;127(2):1031-1048. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.11.012. Epub 2015 Nov 22. PMID: 26652115; PMCID: PMC4747791.
  12. Shah AK, Mittal S. Invasive electroencephalography monitoring: Indications and presurgical planning. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2014 Mar;17(Suppl 1):S89-94. doi: 10.4103/0972-2327.128668. PMID: 24791095; PMCID: PMC4001224.
  13. Zhao ZP, Nie C, Jiang CT, Cao SH, Tian KX, Yu S, Gu JW. Modulating brain activity with invasive brain-computer interface: A narrative review. Brain Sciences. 2023;13(1):134. doi: 10.3390/brainsci1301013.
  14. Turner R. Uses, misuses, new uses and fundamental limitations of magnetic resonance imaging in cognitive science. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Oct 5;371(1705):20150349. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0349. PMID: 27574303; PMCID: PMC5003851.
  15. Kulich R, Maciewicz R, Scrivani SJ. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) and expert testimony. Pain Med. 2009 Mar;10(2):373-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00567.x. Epub 2009 Feb 25. Erratum in: Pain Med. 2009 May-Jun;10(4):775. PMID: 19254335.
  16. Taha BN, Baykara M, Alaku? TB. Neurophysiological Approaches to Lie Detection: A Systematic Review. Brain Sci. 2025 May 18;15(5):519. doi: 10.3390/brainsci15050519. PMID: 40426690; PMCID: PMC12110709.
  17. Abootalebi V, Moradi MH, Khalilzadeh MA. A new approach for EEG feature extraction in P300-based lie detection. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2009 Apr;94(1):48-57. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2008.10.001. Epub 2008 Nov 28. PMID: 19041154.
  18. Yang H, Jiang L. Regulating neural data processing in the age of BCIs: Ethical concerns and legal approaches. Digit Health. 2025 Mar 28;11:20552076251326123. doi: 10.1177/20552076251326123. PMID: 40162168; PMCID: PMC11951885.
  19. Schermer M. Ethical issues in deep brain stimulation. Front Integr Neurosci. 2011 May 9;5:17. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2011.00017. PMID: 21625629; PMCID: PMC3096836.
  20. Society for brain mapping and therapeutics. 2015.
  21. Aono D, Yaffe G, Kober H. Neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom: a review. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2019 Oct 22;4(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s41235-019-0179-y. PMID: 31641963; PMCID: PMC6805839.
  22. Deborah W. Denno, the myth of the double- edged sword: an empirical study of neuroscience evidence in criminal cases, 56 B.C. L. Rev. 493. 2015.
  23. Report of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC) on the ethical issues of neurotechnology. 2019.
  24. Neurotechnology - Integrating human rights in regulation. Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. 2024.
  25. Ones OD. Brain scans as evidence: Truths, proofs, lies, and lessons. Vanderbilt Law Review. 2011;62(3):763-818.
  26. Compton ES. The need for cautionary jury instructions for neuroscience evidence in criminal trials. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law. 2010;12(2):333-370.
  27. Starke G, Akmazoglu TB, Colucci A, Vermehren M, van Beinum A, Buthut M, Soekadar SR, Bublitz C, Chandler JA, Ienca M. Qualitative studies involving users of clinical neurotechnology: a scoping review. BMC Med Ethics. 2024 Aug 14;25(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01087-z. PMID: 39138452; PMCID: PMC11323440.
  28. Díaz Soto JM, Borbón D. Neurorights vs. neuroprediction and lie detection: The imperative limits to criminal law. Front Psychol. 2022 Dec 8;13:1030439. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1030439. PMID: 36591076; PMCID: PMC9801636.
  29. Scurich N, Appelbaum PS. Behavioral Genetics in Criminal Court. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1:772-774. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0212-4. Epub 2017 Sep 18. PMID: 29250604; PMCID: PMC5730091.
  30. Farahany NA. Genetics and responsibility: To know the criminal from the crime. Law and Contemporary Problems. 2006;69(1-2):115-164.
  31. Perricone A, Baskin-Sommers A, Ahn WK. The effect of neuroscientific evidence on sentencing depends on how one conceives of reasons for incarceration. PLoS One. 2022 Nov 2;17(11):e0276237. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276237. PMID: 36322534; PMCID: PMC9629607.
  32. Choudhury S, Jotterand F. Ethical and legal challenges of neurotech. DLA Piper Insights. 2025.
  33. Meynen G, Van de Pol N, Tesink V, Ligthart S. Neurotechnology to reduce recidivism: Ethical and legal challenges. Handb Clin Neurol. 2023;197:265-276. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-821375-9.00006-2. PMID: 37633715.
  34. Ligthart S. The right to mental integrity in the age of neurotechnology: constructing scope and exploring permissible limitations. J Law Biosci. 2025 Jun 3;12(1):lsaf010. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsaf010. PMID: 40463476; PMCID: PMC12133093.
  35. European-charter-for-the-responsible-development-of-neurotechnologies.
  36. The Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Act, 2014: A new era in criminal justice system of Bangladesh. 2014.
  37. Neuroscientific and genetic evidence in criminal cases (PMC/NIH).
  38. Hayes D. Neuroscience and the criminal legal system: A humanitarian application framework. Journal of Health Care Law & Policy. 2022;26(1):1-38.
  39. Murphy E. Neuroscience and the civil/criminal Daubert divide. Fordham Law Review. 2016;84(2):619- 652.
  40. Hilbert J. Frye, Daubert, and the ongoing crisis of “junk science” in criminal trials. Oklahoma Law Review. 2019;71(1):25-81.
  41. United States v. Semrau, 693 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2012).
  42. Langleben DD, Moriarty JC. Using Brain Imaging for Lie Detection: Where Science, Law and Research Policy Collide. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2013 May 1;19(2):222-234. doi: 10.1037/a0028841. PMID: 23772173; PMCID: PMC3680134.
  43. Hilbert J. Frye, Daubert, and the ongoing crisis of “junk science” in criminal trials. Oklahoma Law Review. 2019;71(1):25-81.
  44. Meixner JB Jr. Applications of neuroscience in criminal law: legal and methodological issues. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2015;15(2):513. doi: 10.1007/s11910-014-0513-1. PMID: 25475493.
  45. Strubakos JD. Developmental neurobiology and Miller v. Alabama. Cleveland State Law Review. 2025;73(2):407-440.
  46. Marzorati EN. Science, the supreme court, and the juvenile brain. California Law Review. 2013;101(5):1231- 1278.
  47. Fuss J, Dressing H, Briken P. Neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom: a randomised controlled trial with German judges. J Med Genet. 2015 Nov;52(11):730-7. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103284. Epub 2015 Aug 25. PMID: 26307568.
  48. Guillen Gonzalez D, Bittlinger M, Erk S, Müller S. Neuroscientific and Genetic Evidence in Criminal Cases: A Double-Edged Sword in Germany but Not in the United States? Front Psychol. 2019 Oct 16;10:2343. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02343. PMID: 31681122; PMCID: PMC6805698.
  49. Genetic evidence in criminal cases. Student Briefs. 2023.
  50. Forced narco tests illegal, results not admissible: Supreme court. India Today. 2025.
  51. Prashant Kanha. Narco-analysis constitutionality in India: 2025 Supreme court ruling on consent, rights, and legal admissibility explained. 2025.
  52. Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025 INSC 810). Supreme Court of India. 2025.
  53. Dwivedi N. Narco-analysis in India: Legal, ethical and investigative perspectives. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts. 2025;13(6):77-88.
  54. Parven K. Forensic use of DNA information in the justice delivery system of Bangladesh: Human rights and privacy challenges. Bangladesh Institute of Legal and International Affairs. 2021;73:30 45.
  55. Szoszkiewicz ?, Yuste R. Mental privacy: navigating risks, rights and regulation: Advances in neuroscience challenge contemporary legal frameworks to protect mental privacy. EMBO Rep. 2025 Jul;26(14):3469-3473. doi: 10.1038/s44319-025-00505-6. Epub 2025 Jun 25. PMID: 40562792; PMCID: PMC12287510.
  56. Borbón D. What a NeuroRights legislation should not look like: the case of the Latin American Parliament. Front Neurosci. 2025 Jan 3;18:1514338. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1514338. PMID: 39830589; PMCID: PMC11739119.
  57. Resolution on neurotechnology, human rights, data protection and privacy. Global Privacy Assembly. 2024.
  58. Holmen SJ. Neurointerventions and informed consent. In Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice. Roskilde University. 2021.
  59. Denno DW. Neuroscience and the personalization of criminal law. The University of Chicago Law Review. 2019;86(2):359-424.
  60. Kuersten A, Medaglia JD. Neuroscience and the model penal code’s mens rea categories. Duke Law Journal Online. 2021;71:1-21.
  61. Ienca M, Andorno R. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2017 Dec;13(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1. Epub 2017 Apr 26. PMID: 28444626; PMCID: PMC5447561.
  62. Guerrero F. Neurorights: A new legal and ethical frontier. Multidisciplinary & Health Education Journal. 2024;6(1):979-991.
  63. Geukes SH, Bijlsma J, Meynen G, Raemaekers MAH, Ramsey NF, Simon Thomas MA, van Toor DAG, Vansteensel MJ. Neurotechnology in criminal justice: key points for neuroscientists and engineers. J Neural Eng. 2024 Jan 9;21(1). doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/ad1785. PMID: 38193322.
  64. Dror IE. Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understanding and utilizing the human element. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Aug 5;370(1674):20140255. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0255. PMID: 26101281; PMCID: PMC4581000.
  65. van Dongen JDM, Franken IHA. Neuroscience in forensic psychiatry and psychology: An introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2019;18(3):179-186. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2019.1652708.
  66. Alimardani A. An empirical study of the use of neuroscience in sentencing in New South Wales, Australia. Front Psychol. 2023 Aug 22;14:1228354. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1228354. PMID: 37674754; PMCID: PMC10477594.
  67. Neurotechnology: Integrating Human rights in regulation. Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. 2025.
  68. Adekemi F. Can We Trust AI Symptom Checkers? SSRN. 2025.
  69. Ethics of neurotechnology: Report of the international expert group. UNESCO International Bioethics Committee. UNESCO. 2024.
  70. Farahany. Examines the importance of consent in neurotechnology law, highlighting autonomy and dignity. 2023
  71. Yuste R, Goering S, Arcas BAY, Bi G, Carmena JM, Carter A, Fins JJ, Friesen P, Gallant J, Huggins JE, Illes J, Kellmeyer P, Klein E, Marblestone A, Mitchell C, Parens E, Pham M, Rubel A, Sadato N, Sullivan LS, Teicher M, Wasserman D, Wexler A, Whittaker M, Wolpaw J. Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature. 2017 Nov 8;551(7679):159-163. doi: 10.1038/551159a. PMID: 29120438; PMCID: PMC8021272.
  72. Lenca. Emphasize the need for transparency, policies, and redress in the governance of neurotech in law enforcement. 2023.
  73. General comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to privacy). CCPR/C/GC/16. United Nations Human Rights Committee. 2006.
  74. Ligthart S. Rethinking the right to freedom of thought. Human Rights Law Review. 2022;22(4). doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngac028.
  75. Ligthart S, Ienca M, Meynen G, Molnar-Gabor F, Andorno R, Bublitz C, Catley P, Claydon L, Douglas T, Farahany N, Fins JJ, Goering S, Haselager P, Jotterand F, Lavazza A, McCay A, Wajnerman Paz A, Rainey S, Ryberg J, Kellmeyer P. Minding Rights: Mapping Ethical and Legal Foundations of 'Neurorights'. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2023 May 15:1-21. doi: 10.1017/S0963180123000245. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37183686.
  76. White T, Gonsalves M. Grounding universal human rights in science. Michigan Psychological Association. 2024.
  77. Marcelo Ienca, Roberto Andorno. Neurorights: Is the creation of new human rights effective in the digital age? International Bar Association. 2025
  78. Hertz N. Neurorights – Do we need new human rights? SSRN Electronic Journal. 2022.
  79. Non-derogable rights under the ICCPR. CCPR Centre. (n.d.).
  80. Opinio Juris. When neurotechnology erodes freedom of thought: The Habeas Cogitationem Writ. 2025.
  81. Neurotechnology and human rights. Australian Human Rights Commission. 2024.
  82. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine (Oviedo Convention). Council of Europe. 1997.
  83. Neurodata: privacy and protection of personal data (II). Agencia Española de Protección de Datos. 2023.
  84. Ruiz S, Valera L, Ramos P, Sitaram R. Neurorights in the Constitution: from neurotechnology to ethics and politics. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2024 Dec 2;379(1915):20230098. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2023.0098. Epub 2024 Oct 21. PMID: 39428886; PMCID: PMC11491849.
  85. OECD neurotechnology Toolkit: Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2024.
  86. Resolution 58/6. General Assembly. United Nations Human Rights Council. 2024.
  87. Study on the impact, opportunities, and challenges of neurotechnology with regard to the promotion and protection of all human rights. United Nations Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. 2024.
  88. Van de Pol N. Neurointerventions in criminal justice. European Human Rights Law Review. 2023;5.
  89. Ligthart S, Dore-Horgan E, Meynen G. The various faces of vulnerability: offering neurointerventions to criminal offenders. J Law Biosci. 2023 May 6;10(1):lsad009. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsad009. PMID: 37168841; PMCID: PMC10165894.
  90. Neuro-interventions in criminal justice. European Court of Human Rights. 2023.
  91. Andorno R, Shaw DM, Elger B. Protecting prisoners' autonomy with advance directives: ethical dilemmas and policy issues. Med Health Care Philos. 2015 Feb;18(1):33-9. doi: 10.1007/s11019-014-9571-z. PMID: 24846725.
  92. National commission for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research. The Ethical Framework for Research Involving Prisoners. 1976.
  93. Ligthart SLTJ. Coercive neuroimaging, criminal law, and privacy: a European perspective. J Law Biosci. 2019 Oct 9;6(1):289-309. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsz015. Erratum in: J Law Biosci. 2019 Dec 06;7(1):lsz017. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsz017. PMID: 31666970; PMCID: PMC6813934.
  94. Ethical issues of neurotechnology: Report, adopted in plenary during the 27th session. UNESCO. 2021.
  95. Meynen G. Neurotechnology to reduce recidivism: Ethical and legal issues. 2023.
  96. McCrorie AD, Donnelly C, McGlade KJ. Infographics: Healthcare Communication for the Digital Age. Ulster Med J. 2016 May;85(2):71-5. PMID: 27601757; PMCID: PMC4920488.
  97. Wang J, Jiang Y, Fu X, Gou R, Sun Z, Li G, Zhang W, Nie J, Wang W, Zhao K, Wang L, Zhang R. Evaluating the impact of interactive video-based case-based learning in clinical medical education: a randomized controlled trial. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 May 16;12:1556018. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1556018. PMID: 40454152; PMCID: PMC12123690.
  98. Fitzpatrick PJ. Improving health literacy using the power of digital communications to achieve better health outcomes for patients and practitioners. Front Digit Health. 2023 Nov 17;5:1264780. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1264780. PMID: 38046643; PMCID: PMC10693297.
  99. Gupta V. Textual accessibility, consumption experiences and perspectives on literacy: Insights from the audiobook revolution. International Journal of Linguistics. 2025;17(2):133-151.
  100. Traboco L, Pandian H, Nikiphorou E, Gupta L. Designing Infographics: Visual Representations for Enhancing Education, Communication, and Scientific Research. J Korean Med Sci. 2022 Jul 11;37(27):e214. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e214. PMID: 35818705; PMCID: PMC9274103.
  101. Liu M, Wang C, Hu J. Older adults' intention to use voice assistants: Usability and emotional needs. Heliyon. 2023 Nov 2;9(11):e21932. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21932. PMID: 38027966; PMCID: PMC10663927.
  102. Arifin K. The influence of multimodal learning strategies on prospective biology teachers' literacy-numeracy learning outcomes. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2025;21(1):em2563.
  103. Ginting D. The effects of digital storytelling on the retention and transferability of students’ knowledge. SAGE Open. 2024;14(3).
  104. Liu Y, Ma S, Chen Y. The impacts of learning motivation, emotional engagement and psychological capital on academic performance in a blended learning university course. Front Psychol. 2024 May 9;15:1357936. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1357936. PMID: 38800675; PMCID: PMC11119290.
  105. Tyng CM, Amin HU, Saad MNM, Malik AS. The Influences of Emotion on Learning and Memory. Front Psychol. 2017 Aug 24;8:1454. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01454. PMID: 28883804; PMCID: PMC5573739.
  106. Huang Y, Xu W, Sukjairungwattana P, Yu Z. Learners' continuance intention in multimodal language learning education: An innovative multiple linear regression model. Heliyon. 2024 Mar 17;10(6):e28104. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28104. PMID: 38560686; PMCID: PMC10979228.
  107. Wilson M. The role of multimodal learning in enhancing language acquisition for bilingual learners. Emerging Research. 2024;2:1-23.
  108. Cherif KM. The impact of interactive multimedia on young learners' academic performance. Contemporary Teaching Essentials. 2025;9(1):50-64.
  109. Sipahutar N. Effectiveness of using interactive learning media to improve students' interest in learning Islamic Education. Etnopedagogi: Jurnal Pendidikan. 2025;3(2):290-299. doi: 10.62945/etnopedagogi.v2i1.610.
  110. Amygdala: What it is and what it controls. Cleveland Clinic. 2025.
  111. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex - An overview. In: ScienceDirect Topics. Elsevier. 2024.
  112. White LK, Makhoul W, Teferi M, Sheline YI, Balderston NL. The role of dlPFC laterality in the expression and regulation of anxiety. Neuropharmacology. 2023 Feb 15;224:109355. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2022.109355. Epub 2022 Nov 26. PMID: 36442650; PMCID: PMC9790039.
  113. Banks SJ, Eddy KT, Angstadt M, Nathan PJ, Phan KL. Amygdala-frontal connectivity during emotion regulation. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2007 Dec;2(4):303-12. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsm029. PMID: 18985136; PMCID: PMC2566753.
  114. Koppel L, Novembre G, Kämpe R, Savallampi M, Morrison I. Prediction and action in cortical pain processing. Cereb Cortex. 2023 Jan 5;33(3):794-810. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhac102. PMID: 35289367; PMCID: PMC9890457.
  115. Pereira MG, de Oliveira L, Erthal FS, Joffily M, Mocaiber IF, Volchan E, Pessoa L. Emotion affects action: Midcingulate cortex as a pivotal node of interaction between negative emotion and motor signals. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2010 Mar;10(1):94-106. doi: 10.3758/CABN.10.1.94. PMID: 20233958; PMCID: PMC2875262.
  116. Pizzagalli DA, Roberts AC. Prefrontal cortex and depression. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022 Jan;47(1):225-246. doi: 10.1038/s41386-021-01101-7. Epub 2021 Aug 2. Erratum in: Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022 Jan;47(2):609. doi: 10.1038/s41386-021-01160-w. PMID: 34341498; PMCID: PMC8617037.
  117. Nejati V, Rad JA, Rasanan AHH. Neuromodulation of risk and reward processing during decision making in individuals with general anxiety disorder (GAD). Sci Rep. 2025 Jan 2;15(1):371. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-84520-y. PMID: 39747372; PMCID: PMC11696206.
  118. Martín-Monzón I, de Albuquerque LAF, Cervio A, Crivelli L. Editorial: Current status of neural networks that subserve emotion and cognition - unraveling the complex brain through multidisciplinary contributions in awake brain surgery. Front Psychol. 2025 May 30;16:1627165. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1627165. PMID: 40519828; PMCID: PMC12163026.
  119. First draft of a recommendation on the ethics of neurotechnology. UNESCO. 2024.
  120. Gupta RR. Relevance of forensic science and credibility of forensic report. IP International Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicological Sciences. 2024;9(2):53-54.
  121. Hendriks S, Grady C, Ramos KM, Chiong W, Fins JJ, Ford P, Goering S, Greely HT, Hutchison K, Kelly ML, Kim SYH, Klein E, Lisanby SH, Mayberg H, Maslen H, Miller FG, Rommelfanger K, Sheth SA, Wexler A. Ethical Challenges of Risk, Informed Consent, and Posttrial Responsibilities in Human Research With Neural Devices: A Review. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Dec 1;76(12):1506-1514. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3523. PMID: 31621797; PMCID: PMC9395156.
  122. Draft text of the recommendation on the ethics of neurotechnology. UNESCO. 2025.
  123. O'Shaughnessy MR, Johnson WG, Tournas LN, Rozell CJ, Rommelfanger KS. Neuroethics guidance documents: principles, analysis, and implementation strategies. J Law Biosci. 2023 Oct 26;10(2):lsad025. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsad025. PMID: 37901886; PMCID: PMC10602660.
  124. Saldanha DMF. Transparency and accountability in digital public services. Government Information Quarterly. 2022;39(2).
  125. Actions for transparent and accountable digital. Open Government Partnership. 2021.
  126. Lahusen C, Maggetti M, Slavkovik M. Trust, trustworthiness and AI governance. Sci Rep. 2024 Sep 5;14(1):20752. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-71761-0. PMID: 39237635; PMCID: PMC11377768.
  127. California’s New Frontier in Data Protection and Neurorights. Tech Policy Press; 2024.
  128. Wei B, Cheng S, Feng Y. Neural personal information and its legal protection: evidence from China. J Law Biosci. 2025 Apr 15;12(1):lsaf006. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsaf006. PMID: 40236742; PMCID: PMC11998663.
  129. European data protection supervisor. TechDispatch #1/2024. Neurodata. 2024.
  130. Biega AJ. The data minimization principle in machine learning. ACM Digital Library. 2025.
  131. Spivack J. New legislation on 'neural data' by FPF. LinkedIn. 2024.
  132. Jwa AS, Poldrack RA. Addressing privacy risk in neuroscience data: from data protection to harm prevention. J Law Biosci. 2022 Sep 4;9(2):lsac025. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsac025. PMID: 36072418; PMCID: PMC9444136.
  133. APA adopts policies to strengthen privacy protections for neural data. APA. 2025.
  134. Issues in neurotechnology governance. OECD. 2018.
  135. Towards inclusive EU governance of neurotechnologies. CFG Europe. 2025.
  136. A global landscape of neuroscience public engagement and neuroethics. MULTI-ACT Consortium. 2019.
  137. Kaebnick GE. Neuroscience and Society: Supporting and Unsettling Public Engagement. Hastings Cent Rep. 2024 Jan;54(1):20-23. doi: 10.1002/hast.1565. PMID: 38390680.
  138. Schleim S. Neuroscience is ready for neuroethics engagement. Frontiers in Communication. 2022;7:909964.
  139. Clio. Neurotechnology and the law: A Legal Perspective. 2025.
  140. Neurotechnology, law and the legal profession. Scottish Legal Review. 2022.
  141. Neurotechnology and the law short course. Neurotech Law. 2015.
  142. Evidence needed to assist the Nuffield council on bioethics in our reassessment of neurotechnology use in healthcare. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2025.
  143. Law and neuroscience. Executive Diploma on Law and Neuroscience. UN SDG: 2023.
  144. Sanes J, Buckholtz J. Use of neurotechnologies and neuroscience in legal settings. In: National Academies Press (US); 2018.
  145. Aziz AY. Neurotechnology and the law: Legal considerations for privacy, autonomy, and liability. Russian Law Journal. 2023; 11(5):1-19.
  146. Farahany NA. National library of medicine (National Center for Biotechnology Information). 2016.
  147. Gordon EC, Seth AK. Ethical considerations for the use of brain-computer interfaces for cognitive enhancement. PLoS Biol. 2024 Oct 28;22(10):e3002899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002899. PMID: 39466848; PMCID: PMC11542783.
  148. Nestor PG. In defense of free will: Neuroscience and criminal responsibility. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019 Jul-Aug;65:101344. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.04.004. Epub 2018 Apr 22. PMID: 29685647.
  149. Rainey S. An anticipatory approach to ethico-legal implications of future neurotechnology. PubMed Central. 2024;18. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00482-4.
  150. Szoszkiewicz ?, Yuste R. Mental privacy: navigating risks, rights and regulation : Advances in neuroscience challenge contemporary legal frameworks to protect mental privacy. EMBO Rep. 2025 Jul;26(14):3469-3473. doi: 10.1038/s44319-025-00505-6. Epub 2025 Jun 25. PMID: 40562792; PMCID: PMC12287510.
  151. Wagner J. DNA, Racial disparities, and biases in criminal justice: Searching for solutions. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology. 2019;27:44.
Publish with JBRES — Peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary Open Access with rapid review, DOI, and global visibility.
Double-Blind CrossRef DOI Discoverable
Submit Manuscript Membership