Disparities in self-reported knowledge about neurotechnology

• A survey explored disparities in self-reported knowledge about neurotechnology.¹
• The work addresses policy and adoption context only, not devices or methods.¹
• Scientific Reports (Nature); tier-2 for ecosystem context.^{1 1}

Weekly enrichment (2026-07-20)

• The study (Sattler, Mehlkop, Neuhaus, Wexler & Reiner, Scientific Reports, 2025) surveyed a large nationwide sample of adults in Germany (N = 10,339) to map public awareness of neurotechnologies and disparities in self-reported knowledge.^{2 3}
• It covered six neurotechnologies — ultrasound, EEG, fMRI, brain stimulation, spinal cord stimulation, and brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) — measuring both whether people had ever heard of each and how much knowledge they claimed.^{2 3}
• Most respondents reported at least some knowledge of the more established ultrasound and EEG, while about 60-65% had heard of fMRI, brain stimulation, and spinal cord stimulation, and fewer than 50% had heard of BCIs.^{2 3}
• Even among those who had heard of a technology, most reported very little to little knowledge, especially for brain stimulation, spinal cord stimulation, and BCIs, indicating familiarity without depth.^{2 3}
• Prior personal use of a neurotechnology (for treatment, diagnosis, or other purposes) increased the extent of self-reported knowledge, with a small effect size.^{2 3}
• Working in a healthcare or care profession was consistently associated with higher likelihood of knowing each neurotechnology and greater self-reported knowledge; higher health literacy was positively associated specifically with EEG and brain stimulation knowledge.^{2 3}
• Gender and age disparities emerged: being female was negatively associated with BCI knowledge, and the oldest age group reported less knowledge of ultrasound, EEG, and fMRI than several younger groups.^{2 3}
• The authors frame these findings as a way to identify uninformed societal groups and target information campaigns, relevant to equitable adoption and governance of neurotechnology rather than to any specific device or method.^{2 3}

Footnotes

1. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiX0FVX3lxTE9kTUlxTHdzZGF0TTRhOGI5WElCUXp2cFV0ZXV6YTJjUXlycHNRblRnQ01FaDZGeFMxU3BZdzF3MDVINkJjX2NPTl85VGJVVkNoenRsS0I0M3owS19iaDlV?oc=5 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-00460-1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-00460-1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸