Aphantasia Logo
Back to all research
Aphantasia Logo

Building awareness and understanding of aphantasia through research, education, and community support.

About

  • What is Aphantasia?
  • What is Hyperphantasia?
  • Take Assessment
  • Getting Started
  • Newsletter
  • About Us
  • Contact

Community

  • Premium Membership
  • Find support
  • Discussions
  • Events
  • Visualize

For Professionals

  • Overview
  • Free Introduction
  • Counselor Training
  • Educator Training
  • List Your Practice
  • Pricing & Bundles

Resources

  • Articles & Stories
  • Videos & Interviews
  • Aphantasia Course
  • FAQs

Research

  • Research Library
  • Participate in Studies
  • Recruitment Services

© 2026 Aphantasia Network. All rights reserved.

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
Aphantasia Logo
Back to all research
Aphantasia Logo

Building awareness and understanding of aphantasia through research, education, and community support.

About

  • What is Aphantasia?
  • What is Hyperphantasia?
  • Take Assessment
  • Getting Started
  • Newsletter
  • About Us
  • Contact

Community

  • Premium Membership
  • Find support
  • Discussions
  • Events
  • Visualize

For Professionals

  • Overview
  • Free Introduction
  • Counselor Training
  • Educator Training
  • List Your Practice
  • Pricing & Bundles

Resources

  • Articles & Stories
  • Videos & Interviews
  • Aphantasia Course
  • FAQs

Research

  • Research Library
  • Participate in Studies
  • Recruitment Services

© 2026 Aphantasia Network. All rights reserved.

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
Ask AI About This Paper
Ask AI About This Paper

Brain-Computer Interface tool use and the Contemplation Conundrum: a blueprint of mental action, agency, and control

DOI: 10.1093/oons/kvaf002
Tags:
Measurement & AssessmentPhantasia
Mehta, D. (2025). Brain-computer interface tool use and the contemplation conundrum: a blueprint of mental action, agency, and control. Oxford Open Neuroscience, 4. doi:10.1093/oons/kvaf002

Abstract

This paper approaches the role of intentional action in brain-computer interface (BCI) tool use to allow for an ethical discourse regarding the development and usage of neurotechnology. The exploration of mental actions and user control in BCI tool use brings us closer to understanding the philosophical underpinnings of intentions and agency for BCI-mediated actions. The author presents that under some theories of intentional action, certain BCI-mediated overt movements qualify as both voluntary and unintentional. This plausibly magnifies the ethical considerations surrounding BCI tool use. This problem is referred by the author as the contemplation conundrum. Thus, the paper proposes research scope for the neural correlates of intention formation and the neural correlates of imagination aimed at clarifying implementational control and safeguarding privacy of thought in BCI tool use.

Authors

  • Dvija Mehta1

Brain-Computer Interface tool use and the Contemplation Conundrum: a blueprint of mental action, agency, and control

DOI: 10.1093/oons/kvaf002
Tags:
Measurement & AssessmentPhantasia
Mehta, D. (2025). Brain-computer interface tool use and the contemplation conundrum: a blueprint of mental action, agency, and control. Oxford Open Neuroscience, 4. doi:10.1093/oons/kvaf002

Abstract

This paper approaches the role of intentional action in brain-computer interface (BCI) tool use to allow for an ethical discourse regarding the development and usage of neurotechnology. The exploration of mental actions and user control in BCI tool use brings us closer to understanding the philosophical underpinnings of intentions and agency for BCI-mediated actions. The author presents that under some theories of intentional action, certain BCI-mediated overt movements qualify as both voluntary and unintentional. This plausibly magnifies the ethical considerations surrounding BCI tool use. This problem is referred by the author as the contemplation conundrum. Thus, the paper proposes research scope for the neural correlates of intention formation and the neural correlates of imagination aimed at clarifying implementational control and safeguarding privacy of thought in BCI tool use.

Authors

  • Dvija Mehta1
Aphantasia Logo

What This Study Is About

This research explores how people use brain-computer interfaces (BCIs)—devices that turn thoughts into actions—and whether the movements these devices make are always what the user truly intended. It specifically looks at how "motor imagery" (imagining a movement) acts as the bridge between a thought and a computer-controlled action.

How They Studied It

This was a philosophical and theoretical study rather than a laboratory experiment with new participants. The researcher analyzed the real-world case of "P1" (Noland Arbaugh), the first human to receive a Neuralink brain implant. By looking at how P1 uses mental imagery to move a computer cursor or play chess, the author examined the "causal chain" of how a mental act becomes a physical result. The study compared these BCI actions against established theories of how the human brain normally processes intentions and movements.

What They Found

The researcher identified a problem called the "contemplation conundrum." Because BCIs rely on motor imagery—the ability to "picture" or feel a movement in the mind—the device might accidentally pick up on a thought the user was only considering, rather than one they decided to act on. The study found that:
  • BCI actions are "non-basic," meaning they require an extra mental step (imagining) that normal body movements don't need.
  • Vivid mental imagery makes the brain signals stronger and easier for the computer to read.
  • Because the brain uses similar pathways for "thinking about" and "doing," a user might move a cursor voluntarily but still feel it was unintentional if the computer grabbed the wrong "overlapping" thought.

What This Might Mean

This suggests that for people with aphantasia (who cannot visualize) or those with varying levels of motor imagery, using a BCI might feel different or have different levels of accuracy. If a device requires "vivid" imagery to work well, people who lack that internal "picture" or "feeling" might face unique challenges. It also raises ethical questions: if a computer acts on a thought you were only "contemplating," are you still responsible for that action?

One Interesting Detail

The study notes that for a BCI user, imagining a movement is a "basic mental act"—for them, the act of imagining is the exact same thing as a person without an implant physically raising their hand.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain errors. Always refer to the original paper for accuracy.
Most-Cited Researchers
Top 10 researchers by number of papers published in Aphantasia
1

Joel Pearson

35
2

Merlin Monzel

30
3

Adam Zeman

20
4

Rebecca Keogh

17
5

Martin Reuter

16
6

Juha Silvanto

14
7

Paolo Bartolomeo

11
8

Carla Dance

10
9

Jianghao Liu

9
10

Fraser Milton

9
Recruit the largest aphantasia cohort on earth

97.4K+ users & subscribers across the imagery spectrum, plus 1.5M+ survey responses in our dataset. Skip the recruitment bottleneck and run your study with the community we've built for a decade.

Partner with us