Abstract: The aim of the study is to develop a proof of concept experiment dedicated to the monitorization and augmentation of neuro-visual performances in airport security screening personnel. The main specific parameters of the visual tasks involved are visual stereotypy, detection of complex visual patterns, visuo-spatial perspective, low- frequency anomaly detection, limited time exposure, psychological pressure. The final result of the research is the development and validation of a neuroaugmentation program.
On the course of three months, on two groups (study and control, 10 subjects in each group, both male and females) we used three different interventions: low energy neurofeedback, mild pharmacological stimulation and visual training. We study the individual impact on neuro-visual performance of each intervention and a final summation effect of all three interventions was tested using a simulated baggage screening task under near-real conditions. The neuro-visual performance was evaluated using electroencephalography, visual interaction (eye- tracking) and galvanic skin response.
The results obtained are positive and show a remarkable improvement in the study grup (vs control) in pattern detection, the speed of anomaly detection, a decrease in false-positive target detection and general visual efficiency improvement. The tollerance to the procedures was good and no side-effects were reported.
Our successful research and rapid development of this branch in the United States (military and civilian spin-offs), the previous interest of some NATO states and similar romanian civilian initiatives determined us to propose the foundation of a Human Performance Optimization (or Enhancement) Center for national security personell. We consider that are at least three main areas of research and development – psysical fitness, neuroaugmentation, human-computer interaction.
Key-words: airport pre-flight security screening personnel, visual task, neuro-visual performances, neuroaugmentation program, low-frequency anomaly detection.
Introduction
The development of neuroscience and the research aimed at investigating the nervous system and the human mind had a number of outcomes, including military applications. One application is cognitive enhancement or neuroaugmentation, whose goal is to provide to the modern soldier cognitive performance, endurance and higher adaptive capacity, while minimizing unwanted effects.
Neuroaugmentation is most commonly defined as the “use for non-medical (for non-curative purpoises) of psychoactive substances and technologies in order to produce an selective improvement of the cognitive and emotional abilities of an individual“, and is an focal application the concept of augmentation (enhancement) defined as “the totality of interventions aimed at improving (natural) human anatomy or function beyond what is necessary to restore or sustain an optimal health“. Frequently cited alternative definitions are those proposed by researchers renowned in this field, like Andreas Sandberg, who considers that neuroaugmentation is the “amplification or extension of basic human mental capacities by enhancing or augmenting external or internal systems involved in information processing,” Dimitris Repantis – “neuroaugmentation refers to the augmentation and extension of the cognitive, emotional and motivational abilities / functions, using the understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms of these functions in healthy people” or Anjan Catterjee – “interventions aimed at improving cognitive and emotional functions healthy people”. Although there are a significant number of researches and studies on neuroaugmentation and the concern for improving cognitive abilities started since ancient times, this domain is not yet regulated, the terminology is ambiguous and does not enjoy full consensus by all specialists. The media focuson this subject, in most cases positive and highly optimistic, further contribute to the trivialization and confusion, ignoring the fact that the methods used to improve cognitive performance are largely experimental, and sometimes are risky or invasive.
Terminology and ethical issues
The most important aspect is that, at least for the time being, neuroaugmentation is not a medical procedure in itself. Notwithstanding, it often employs methods that are used for therapeutic purposes within several medical specialties, it is sometimes carried out under guidance by medical personnel and it makes use of data that have been obtained during medical studies or research. The concept appeals to neurological and psychiatric healthy persons and it aims to enable the reaching of one’s full potential. In doing so, it elevates (cognitive and emotional) individual neuropsychological performances, on both the quantitative and qualitative levels (the latter implying self-control and personal skills). The approach is similar to the one encountered in sports medicine in the case of high performance athletes. Other examples are the military (special troops, parachuters, supersonic pilots, astronauts, divers, submarinisti, undercover agents) and extreme sportsmen (mountain climbers, arctic explorers, parachuters, deep divers, spelaeologists etc.). What all these examples have in common is the employment of medical knowledge in order to reach one’s maximum biological threshold while observing safety precautions and with the full consent and cooperation of the individual, thus making it possible to set personal or collective records (“above the typical capacities of the specie”). As in the case of high performance sport, neuroaugmentation also comprises a soft and non-invasive optimization phase, on the one hand, which is fulfilled through personalized trainings and manipulation of environmental factors as well as an augmentation phase, on the other hand, which may involve invasive and potentially risky methods, that might be referred to as doping. The experimental phase may be considered separately due to the novelty of the concept and the lack of extended and complex studies in the field1.
A controversial aspect of the neuroaugmentation concept is dealing with ethical issues that arise from the potential high-scale or highly effective application of the procedure. The idea of neuroaugmentation itself leads to controversy when questioning the reasons of its potential developers and users, the public opinion and perception, as well as its methods and consequences. Debates on the subject have covered various topics which highlighted a series of challenges – from which we are mentioning but a few – following rapid development of research into improving human performance and convergence of strategic and top technologies (such as bio, nano and artificial intelligence).
A first point of interest deals with the types of national or international institutions which will regulate and influence the technologies that are aimed at improving human performance. Equally important are concerns regarding the legal approaches and the political control that will be responsible for the design of such evolutions2. By contrast to other similar practices (e.g. doping in sport), neuroaugmentation is not recognized and regulated by an international treaty. As a result, some voices in the research field are claiming that all five courses of action in relation to neuroaugmentation (which range from a laissez-faire approach to having it encouraged, enforced as obligatory, allowed or banned altogether) are potentially relevant.
A second point of interest is that it is highly difficult to carry out complex studies on neuroaugmentation by subjecting otherwise healthy persons to potentially detrimental procedures3. As such, publishing of articles on the subject in top scientific journals is correspondingly challenging, due to the ambivalent status and a lack of a general consensus on the research topic as well as to the absence of specialized institutional authorities in the field. At present, the majority of authors are of the opinion that regulations should be issued by state authorities but also incorporated into international guidelines due to their potential social, medical and security implications – according to Robert Dingwall, “the state has the obligation to ensure that the existing inequalities are not further aggravated and that even more harm will not be produced by validation of inefficient, useless or dangerous technologies”4.
A third point of interest is the context in which neuroaugmentation technologies are used. On the one hand, some authors are advocating for cognitive augmentation as a necessary and mandatory process in connection to claims that there is a direct correlation between an increased IQ and a step-up in productivity. Moral augmentation that might be targeting lawyers, priests or decision-makers at large has its share of staunch supporters as well. On the other hand, some authors urge that all these forms of amplification be categorized as doping and banned altogether. Nevertheless, it is obvious that contextualization of neuroaugmentation practices can give rise to various interpretations which are not in the smallest degree also influenced by judicial practices or cultural traditions at national level5.
A last point of interest is that one can not overlook the fact that the attitude of public opinion is quickly shifting between a highly enthusiastic embrace of the concept, especially in techno-progressive environments (such as communities of youngsters in cities, Silicon Valley, university town, corporations etc.)6 residing at the forefront of the knowledge-based liberal society and a clear-cut rejection by traditionalists and conservatives.
Further arguments for developing and employing neuroaugmentation techniques are appealing to concepts such as virtue, liberty, cognitive autonomy, utilitarianism, and gaining of new and superior capabilities, which are fundamental topics to consider if neuroaugmentation is to be used ethically7. The development of an ethics and principled-based legal framework, by also capitalizing on the accumulated experience in the subfield of neurolaw, with a view to anticipate and influence the manner in which neuroaugmentation technologies will evolve, has already produced some interesting results, such as the project Magna Cortica8. NERRI (Neuro-Enhancement: Responsible Research and Innovation) is another equally ambitious project that has been funded by the European Commission through The Seventh Framework Program. The main objective of the project is to influence the legal framework on which regulation policies within the field of neuroaugmentation techniques will be based9.
Within this context the use of neuroaugmentation is justifiable from both the point of view of the utilitarian moral theory, according to which any given action is moral as long as its outcome is positive for as many people as possible and no other damage has been produced, and the point of view of the autonomy principle, which although may be viewed as a personal right stemming from individual liberty, may also be condemned for reasons having to do with social injustice, hedonism, security concerns, and unforeseen consequences. As a conclusion, the majority of authors acknowledges the necessity of a regulation framework for certain aspects of neuroaugmentation and connected emerging technologies. This is all the more true when considering the modern-day global race for increased social, economic, political and military competitiveness which ever so slightly contributes to consolidation of inequalities between different social, professional and ethnic groups10.
For organizations dealing with national security, efficient management of resources is a crucial objective that needs to be met as a result of the current dynamics of the security environment. As such, any investments in neuroaugmentation technology needs to be balanced by its benefits and the extent of risk control arrangements. In their turn, these institutions can become involved in the creation of a legal framework for neuroaugmentation technologies. In doing so, they may regulate particular areas having to do with the fight against high-risk drug trafficking, proliferation of double-use technologies or providing of neuroaugmentation services to criminal or terrorist organizations, combating of selective neurodegeneration, discrimination, social injustice, stigmatization or cyber-criminality, and preventing the advent of political currents that do not uphold human dignity. The identifying of illegal markets for neuroaugmentation means that are either permissible or subject to specific purchase approvals will constitute another issue of concern in the near future.
Risks
In the context of a lack of regulation, the risks ensued by research in the neuraugmentation field are far from being well defined and mapped. To this purpose, a prospective endeavor in this sense is absolutely necessary.
A primary aspect is constituted by the risk of proliferation of double-use technologies, since neuroaugmentation already employs or will make use of a series of top technologies that have the potential to be exploited for both military and civil purposes. Examples of such technologies are some components of artificial intelligence, neuro-biometrics, brain-computer interfaces, advanced robotics, nanotechnologies, and genetics engineering. Even though these technologies by themselves are strictly controlled and regulated, their convergence can result in products with potential military applications. The approach is quite similar to the one pertaining to autonomous artificial intelligence. It too is believed to be a double-use technology that may generate major security risks that are difficult to foresee. The preemptive argument, which is so abundantly invoked in relation to the emergent technologies of the last half of the century, claims that although the current development state of neuroaugmentation is not posing a serious threat, the next generations stemming from this type of technology will generate major security risks which are difficult to anticipate and counteract. In light of this argument, super-regulation or banning of military research would have to become a priority for science policy.
By invoking similarities with artificial intelligence, another concern becomes apparent. That is the fact that neuroaugmented individuals will become increasingly interested in perfecting the very methods that they have benefited from, as well as dispose of the necessary cognitive resources and other means to learn by themselves at a much faster pace than the rest of the non-augmented individuals. At least in theory, the fusion between human and artificial intelligence by means of neurotechnologies is possible. However, the result would not guarantee predictability in terms of its final utilization and adherence to morality, especially within the military field. On the contrary, history teaches us that a scenario marked by conflict is rather more plausible, in which the “inferior intelligence” is either subordinated or annihilated. Although this scenario is less likely to occur in our times, it is by no means incredible, especially if the “technological singularity” takes place.
A characteristic of future conflicts will be the employment of Enhanced Human Operations, which are based on the use of man-machine dyads, such as advanced robotics, exoskeletons, directed-energy weapons (neuro)augmented soldiers. Some are fearful that certain countries (such as the Russian Federation, China, North Korea and Iran), which benefit from a lack of legal regulation, the support of the authoritarian political factor, and testing ground in proxy conflicts, are already involved in the development of military augmenting means that can yield an asymmetric advantage12. Unsurprisingly, focus is placed on new generations of doping substances and on development of highly-advanced control technologies by the Russian Federation.
Research
For neuroaugmentation, the best results are obtained using a combination of procedures that act at the neurophysiological (like psychopharmaceutical drugs, transcranial electrical/magnetic/ultrasound stimulation), metabolic level (individualized metabolic optimization, physical training, phototherapy) and specialized long-term cognitive training (brain-fitness, gamification and neurogames, serious gaming, problem-solving and decision-making, neuro- and biofeedback, performance psychology and leadership training, relaxation techniques and stress management etc).
We want to stress that with all the help from technology, the human element is still the most important actor in the modern confrontation, with all the vulnerabilities and limitations. Human performance optimization and augmentation is an important step towards the improvement of the quality of the professional act and has a major contribution in streamlining the human-computer partnertnership.
One of the most important superior cognitive function essential for civilian and military professions relevant for national security is the neurovisual performance. This was one of the main reasons that motivated our research, alongside the fact that the neurovisual cortex is well studied and understood. Our research targeted the neuro-visual performances specific to tasks meet in several security related professions: airport pre-flight security screening officers, port facility screening officers, radar operators, image analyst, cyber security officer, UAV pilots, etc. Our research targeted the particular the visual tasks in the case of the airport pre-flight security screening officers. The main specific parameters of the visual tasks involved are visual stereotypy, detection of complex visual patterns, visuospatial perspective, low-frequency anomaly detection, limited time exposure, psychological pressure.
Our research was aimed at identifying a non-invasive, cheap, easy-to-use and safe-to-use method that improves the neurovisual performance in a short amount of time (3-6 months). Our study was designed as a proof of concept experiment dedicated to the monitorization and augmentation of neuro-visual performances in airport security screening officers. The final result is the development and validation of a neuroaugmentation program.
The study was carried out on the course of three months, after several preliminary trials dedicated to the improvement of the research methods. We used two groups (study and control, 10 subjects in each group), males and females, smokers and non-smokers, ages between 25-38 years old. The subjects from the first group were informed about the nature of the procedure and signed a consent form. On the course of the three months they were subjected to three different interventions: EEG-neurofeedback, mild pharmacological stimulation and visual training. The EEG-neurofeedback was performed by a specialized neurologist for three months (1 session/week) and the evaluation was made via EEG LORETA analysis, using using the Neuroguide protocol (functional connectivity analysis). This is a complex process that requires experience and successive error attenuation over multiple sessions in order to eliminate the background noise, biases, insignificant electrical signals. The pharmacological stimulation targeted the cholinergic and GABA-ergic central systems and was also administered for three months. A nonspecific neurostimulant was also added for 10 days/month. The candidates were monitored weeks and had been instructed regarding safety issues. The tolerance was good, but even if none of the candidates experienced side effects, the subjective experience (“feelings of enhancement”) was different. The efficiency evaluation was realised using visual-spatial intelligence tests monitored with eye tracking and EEG recording devices. Visual training was administered via a commercial app that is available in smartphones and computers (laptop, tablet), for 15-30 minutes/day (3 days/we). The evaluation in this case was realised using visual intelligence and discrimination task monitored with eye tracking.
The final evaluation consisted in the visualization of specific and standardized rx images for 8 seconds each (100 images), was administered at the beginning and at the end of the study. We tried to replicate most of the real-life conditions (noise, illumination, irregular distractions, random blank images interposed). The neuro-visual performance was evaluated using electroencephalography (EmotivEpoch – 14 channels EEG and MindWawe Mobile – single channel), visual interaction (Tobi eye-tracking device and CoolTool platform) and galvanic skin response (a channel). The raw data obtained was processed using several specific softwares and the results interpreted and compared with similar studies.
Results
The fusion and interpretation of the information obtained from different channels was the most complex task, with some of the issues still necessitating further optimization. For example, we persistently observed a high variability in the electroencephalographic recordings, that attenuated in most of the cases after 10 or more minutes after the beginning of the work sessions (near-real occupational exposure). Major differences were also observed in the electric activation patterns between males and females and smokers and non-smokers (nicotinic receptor activation?). Using LORETA analysis (EEG, 14 channels, minimum of 20 minutes of evaluation) we observed a stable and robust frontal and occipital activation in all of the cases. Alpha wave asymmetry in the frontal lobes after visualization of “high value targets” was also identified and observed consistently even in non-expert subjects.
A even higher variability was observed in galvanic skin response (GSR) recordings, even on the same person on different sessions. A number of factors, such as clothing, electrostatic loading, emotional status unrelated to the study, etc. have a major contribution to the variations in the GSR signal. However, by making multiple recordings and integrating the GSR recordings with the rest of the data obtained emotional polarity, emotional intensity variations or stress effects can be observed and measured.
On contrary, multiple sesions of eye-tracking led us to the conclusion that the visual search patterns (visual strategies) are relatively constant in an individual, and can be used for biometric recognition. The improvement of the visual search performance as a result of visual training and adherence to the study was best monitored using (first generation) eye tracking. In the context of the accelerated development of the brain-computer interfaces based on visual interaction, we consider eye tracking is a non-invasive method, simple to use and with a still large potential.
The small number of subjects and the fact that our study was concept proof, limited our possibilities of expressing the results in a statistical manner, but allowed comparative assessments or case studies to be carried out. The comparative assessments performed on the same subject (individual assesment) showed that the range of the improvement before and after the the successful completion of all three interventions varied between 30% -100%. Performance improvement in (presented as an average of end-of-run performance) between the control and the augmented lot was about 50%, but this assessment should be seen as a partial quantitative indicator. The most important indicators, with predictive capacity, were those used to evaluate the visual search strategies. In the case of electroencephalography there was an increased interpersonal variability which limited the possibility of being used in intergrup comparative evaluations.
As a final conclusion, the results obtained so far are are positive and show a remarkable improvement in pattern detection, the speed of anomaly detection, a decrease in false-positive target detection, optimized visual search patterns, improvement of signal/noise ratio and general visual efficiency improvement.
Conclusions
So far, the research showed that the limits for human performance improvement and in particular for higher cognitive functions are not exhausted. Today’s expanding technological environment is the main driver for human performance improvement development. Security risks and threats, and in particular terrorism and the proliferation of non-state hostile intelligence services, forced changes of strategy and human element improvement convergent with internet and artificial intelligence development. Our proof-of-concept research highlighted the potential of neuroaugmentation methods and the possibilities for use in national security professions. Neurovisual improvement can be useful in several professions of interest for national security and represent a complementary niche for research on computer vision and artificial intelligence.
Our final statement is that EEG-neurofeedback, mild pharmacological stimulation and visual training (together with other methods) can be useful in training and efficiency improvement for pre-flight airport x-ray security screening personnel.
1 A different definition has been produced within the NERRI project – “Neuroaugmentation is the use of neurotechnologies (e.g. psychotropic substances or brain stimulation devices) with the aim to improve cognitive performances and/or behavioral and functional performances, in cases in which there are no cognitive or behavioral clinical deficits”, accessible at http://www.nerri.eu/eng/ definitions.aspx.
2 Arnold Sauter, Katrin Gerlinger. The Pharmacologically Improved Human Performance-Enhancing Substances as a Social Challenge. Final Report, Technology Assessment Studies Series, No 5, 2013, pg. 265, available athttp://www.itas.kit.edu/pub/v/2013/sage13a.pdf.
3 Heinz A., Kipke R. Cognitive neuroenhancement: false assumptions in the ethical debate. J Med Ethics 2012. vol. 38, pg. 372-375, available athttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22228818.
4 Robert Dingwall. Shaping The Future of Humankind: Three Commentaries on The Ethics of Enhancement. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 2008, pg. 103.
5 Veljko Dubljević. Cognitive Enhancement: Ethical Considerations and a Look into the Future. in Shira Knafo, César Venero. Cognitive Enhancement. Elsevier, 2015.
6 Ben Goertzel. Technoprogressive Political Platform for the USA. 09.11.2015, available athttp://ieet.org/ index.php/IEET/more/goertzel20151107.
7 J. Hughes. Ethical Arguments for the Use of Cognitive Enhancing Drugs (Part Two). 14.03.2014, available at http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/hughes20140314.
8 http://www.openthefuture.com/2014/05/magna_cortica.html.
9 http://www.nerri.eu/eng/about.aspx.
1 Chad Beyer, Ciara Staunton, Keymanthri Moodley. The implications of Methylphenidate use by healthy medical students and doctors in South Africa. BMC Med Ethics. 2014, pp. 15-20, available at http://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-15-20.
1 David Ignatius. The exotic new weapons the Pentagon wants to deter Russia and China. 23 February 2016, The Washington Post, available athttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-exotic-new-weapons-the-pentagon-wants-to-deter-russia-and-china/.
