Research spotlight: Study provides a window into public perceptions about technological treatment options for brain conditions

(Press-News.org) Q: How would you summarize your study for a lay audience? 

Given the rise in brain-based conditions and the growing development and investment in neurotechnologies to target them, it is important to understand how the public views these interventions and whether they would be willing to use them. To explore this, we conducted a survey of over 1,000 U.S. adults to examine perceptions of four neurotechnologies designed to treat severe mood, memory, or motor symptoms. 

Q: What question were you investigating?  

One of the goals of the recently created Neurotech Justice Accelerator at Mass General Brigham (NJAM), a Dana Center for Neuroscience & Society, is to better understand public views about emerging neurotechnologies. We investigated how the U.S. public perceives different neurotechnologies for targeting severe mood, memory, and motor symptoms. While prior research has typically examined only one technology at a time, our study allowed for direct comparisons across four neurotechnologies: deep brain stimulation (DBS), MRI-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and pills. DBS is a surgical procedure in which electrodes are implanted in the brain. MRgFUS is a non-invasive treatment (sometimes called an “incisionless surgery”) that uses high-frequency sound waves to target brain tissue. TMS is a non-surgical procedure that uses magnetic pulses to stimulate nerve cells. 

We also experimentally varied the symptoms, randomly assigning participants to consider these technologies in targeting either severe mood, memory, or motor impairments. This design allowed us to further examine how symptom type might influence public perceptions of these neurotechnologies. These findings offer new insights into how people weigh intervention options depending on the condition being addressed. 

Q: What outcomes did you measure? 

For each neurotechnology, participants rated how beneficial, acceptable, and risky they perceived it to be, whether they thought it might change who someone is as a person, and how likely they would be to consider using it themselves if they experienced one of those symptoms.  

Q: What did you find? 

While familiarity with these neurotechnologies was generally low (except for pills), there was some openness to consider them in cases with severe symptoms. Likelihood of use varied, with 61% of participants open to considering pills, 41% for TMS, 29% for MRgFUS, and 21% for DBS. Pills were rated as the most beneficial, acceptable and most likely to be used. In contrast, deep brain stimulation (DBS) was seen as the second most beneficial but also the riskiest, most invasive, and least likely to be used. This finding suggests that even when participants recognized certain interventions as potentially beneficial, concerns about invasiveness and a change to a person’s self might lead to hesitation. 

Notably, the type of symptom the neurotechnologies were meant to target also had a major impact on perceptions. Participants viewed modulation for motor symptoms as significantly more acceptable and beneficial than those for mood symptoms, which were also seen as more invasive and more likely to change who someone is. These findings suggest that people are not only concerned about the procedures themselves but also about the nature of the symptoms being treated, which reflects deeper beliefs about mental versus physical illness. Understanding these distinctions is essential for improving communication and guiding the ethical implementation of neurotechnologies. 

Q: What are the implications? 

By examining how people perceive neurotechnologies and the brain-based conditions they aim to treat, we gain insight into which factors shape public attitudes and whether these views align with current clinical practices and available neurotechnological intervention options. Our findings provide a baseline for future research on how framing and education may shape public and patient attitudes toward brain-based interventions. They can also inform device developers about which forms of neuromodulation are viewed as more acceptable and guide more responsive design. And for clinicians, the results provide a window into public and potential patients’ expectations, which can support more effective communication about the risks and benefits of available interventions. 

Q: What are the next steps? 

The current results show that people distinguish between four neurotechnologies in terms of perceived risk, benefit, acceptability, invasiveness, and perceived change to self. These differences reveal key barriers and facilitators to public uptake. Yet perceptions such as risk and benefit don’t operate in isolation, they are part of a broader belief system. To build on these findings, we will use network analyses to examine how these perceptions are interrelated and how their combined influence impacts openness to neurotechnology use, which will support the ethical development and communication of neurotechnologies that better reflect patient values and needs. 

  Authorship: In addition to Furrer, Merner, and Lázaro-Muñoz, Mass General Brigham authors include Theresa Williamson and Francis X. Shen. 

Paper cited: Furrer R.A. et al., “Public perceptions of neurotechnologies used to target mood, memory, and motor symptoms” Cell Press Device. DOI: 10.1016/j.device.2025.100804 

Funding: This work was supported by the Neurotech Justice Accelerator at Mass General Brigham (NJAM), a Dana Center Initiative for Neuroscience & Society with funding provided by the Dana Foundation, and grants from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as part of the NIH BRAIN Initiative (F32MH127776), the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) (R01MH133657).  

END