AccScience Publishing / JCBP / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/JCBP025220044
Cite this article
30
Download
3072
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
REVIEW ARTICLE

Harnessing brain-computer interfaces for psychosomatic disorders: Mechanisms, outcomes, and ethics

Fang Wang1 Chung-Han Tsai2*
Show Less
1 Department of Business Administration, School of Economics and Management/Sino-European School of Intellectual Property, Shanghai Institute of Technology, Shanghai, China
2 Department of Business, School of Business Administration, Guangzhou Institute of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
Received: 31 May 2025 | Revised: 1 August 2025 | Accepted: 11 August 2025 | Published online: 3 September 2025
© 2025 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are advancing from proof-of-concept to early clinical use for psychosomatic disorders, yet a concise synthesis that links mechanisms, therapeutic value, and governance remains limited. This review integrates present knowledge on how BCIs modulate emotion-cognition-autonomic networks, summarizes clinical signals in depression, anxiety/post-traumatic stress disorder, somatoform conditions, and chronic pain, as well as outlines the ethical-regulatory context shaping translation. Peer-reviewed studies and authoritative policy documents were retrieved from scholarly literature and organizational websites. The authors screened and narratively synthesized neural targets, outcomes, adverse events, and governance themes. As the aim was conceptual integration and policy mapping rather than quantitative pooling, no meta-analysis, formal risk-of-bias scoring, or registration of the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews was undertaken. Converging evidence indicates that electroencephalogram-based neurofeedback and real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging can reduce distress, enhance emotion regulation, and modulate interoceptive/autonomic markers with generally mild and transient adverse events. Nevertheless, gaps persist in long-term safety monitoring, standardized protocols, and explicit safeguards for brain-data privacy, autonomy, and equity. BCIs thus appear as a mechanistically plausible, moderately effective, and well-tolerated adjunct in psychosomatic care, provided that future multicenter trials embed harmonized methods, extended follow-up, and robust governance aligned with emerging international guidance.

Keywords
Brain-computer interface
Psychosomatic disorders
Neuromodulation
Emotional regulation
Neurofeedback
Clinical applications
Ethics
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing of interests.
References
  1. He B, Yuan H, Meng J, Gao S. Brain-computer interfaces. In: He B, editor. Neural Engineering. 3rd ed. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 1-32. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-43395-6_4
  2. Yao D, Qin Y, Zhang Y. From psychosomatic medicine, brain-computer interface to brain-apparatus communication. Brain Apparatus Commun J Bacomics. 2022;1(1):66-88. doi: 10.1080/27706710.2022.2120775
  3. Pal D, Palit S, Dey A. Brain computer interface: A review. In: Satpathy SK, Sharma TK, editors. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering. Singapore: Springer; 2021. p. 23-38. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4035-3_3
  4. Potter M, Harriss L. Brain-computer interfaces. POSTnote. 2020;614:1-6. Available from: https://researchbriefings. f iles.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0614/ POST-PN-0614.pdf [Last accessed 2025 Aug 23]
  5. Bablani A, Edla DR, Tripathi D, Cheruku R. Survey on brain-computer interface: An emerging computational intelligence paradigm. ACM Comput Surv. 2019;52(4):1-32. doi: 10.1145/3297713
  6. Bularka S, Gontean A. Brain-computer interface review. In: Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Electronics Telecommunications. United States: IEEE; 2016. p. 219-222. doi: 10.1109/ISETC.2016.7781096
  7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Implanted Brain Computer Interface Devices-Nonclinical Testing and Clinical Study Design Considerations; 2023. Available from: https:// www.fda.gov/media/159313/download [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  8. Wulsin LR, Singal BM. Do depressive symptoms increase the risk for the onset of coronary disease? A systematic quantitative review. Psychosom Med. 2003;65(2):201-210. doi: 10.1097/01.PSY.0000058371.50240.E3
  9. Takahashi T, Murata T, Hamada T, et al. Changes in EEG and autonomic nervous activity during meditation and their association with personality traits. Int J Psychophysiol. 2005;55(2):199-207. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2004.07.004
  10. Feinstein JS, Khalsa SS, Salomons TV, et al. Preserved emotional awareness of pain in a patient with extensive bilateral damage to the insula, anterior cingulate, and amygdala. Brain Struct Funct. 2016;221:1499–1511. doi: 10.1007/s00429-014-0986-3
  11. Zhang M, Yang Y, Zhao Y, et al. The application of integrating electroencephalograph-based emotion recognition technology into brain-computer interface systems for the treatment of depression: A narrative review. Adv Technol Neurosci. 2024;1:188-200. doi: 10.4103/atn.atn-d-24-00018
  12. Grabowski ŁB, Chełstowski M, Hiszpańska M, Łaszewska K, Lewandowska M, Milner R. Abnormalities in the absolute power of delta and alpha rhythms in the frontal lobe of patients suffering from psychosomatic disorders. Psychiatr Pol. 2025;59(3):451-462. doi: 10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/186755
  13. Schmidt K, Barac-Dammeyer D, Kowalski A, Teigelack P, Pfeiffer C, Robitzsch A, et al. Implementing biofeedback treatment in a psychosomatic-psychotherapeutic inpatient unit: a cross-sectoral project. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14:1140880. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1140880
  14. Allison BZ, Wolpaw EW, Wolpaw JR. Brain–computer interface systems: progress and prospects. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2007;4(4):463–474. doi: 10.1586/17434440.4.4.463
  15. Birbaumer N, Ramos-Murguialday A, Cohen LG. Brain-computer interface in paralysis. Curr Opin Neurol. 2008;21:634-638. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e328315ee2d
  16. Demarest P, Rustamov N, Swift J, Xie T, Adamek M, Cho H, et al. A novel theta-controlled vibrotactile brain–computer interface to treat chronic pain: a pilot study. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):3433. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-53261-3
  17. Khalsa SS, Lapidus RC. Can interoception improve the pragmatic search for biomarkers in psychiatry? Front Psychiatry. 2016;7:121. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00121
  18. Wu D, Lu BL, Hu B, Zeng Z. Affective brain–computer interfaces (aBCIs): A tutorial. Proc IEEE. 2023;111(10):1314- 1332. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2023.3277471
  19. Young KD, Siegle GJ, Zotev V, et al. Randomized clinical trial of real-time fMRI amygdala neurofeedback for major depressive disorder: Effects on symptoms and autobiographical memory recall. Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(8):748-755. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.16060637
  20. Ruiz S, Birbaumer N, Sitaram R. Volitional Control of Neural Connectivity. In: Guger C, Allison B, Leuthardt E, eds. Brain-Computer Interface Research. Biosystems & Biorobotics, vol 6. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2014:63–68. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-54707-2_7
  21. Marzbani H, Marateb HR, Mansourian M. Neurofeedback: a comprehensive review on system design, methodology and clinical applications. Basic Clin Neurosci. 2016;7(2):143-158. doi: 10.15412/J.BCN.03070208
  22. Young KD, Zotev V, Phillips R, et al. Real-time FMRI neurofeedback training of amygdala activity in patients with major depressive disorder. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e88785. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088785
  23. Lieberman JM, Rabellino D, Densmore M, et al. A tale of two targets: Examining the differential effects of posterior cingulate cortex- and amygdala-targeted fMRI-neurofeedback in a PTSD pilot study. Front Neurosci. 2023;17:1229729.doi: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1229729
  24. DeCharms RC, Maeda F, Glover GH, et al. Control over brain activation and pain learned by using real-time functional MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102(51):18626-18631. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0505210102
  25. Arnold LE, Lofthouse N, Hersch S, et al. EEG Neurofeedback for ADHD: Double-blind sham-controlled randomized pilot feasibility trial. J Atten Disord. 2013;17:410-419. doi: 10.1177/1087054712446173
  26. Wu YR, Su WS, Lin KD, Lin IM. Effect of heart rate variability biofeedback on cardiac autonomic activation and diabetes self-care in patients with type II diabetes mellitus. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2024;50:315-327. doi: 10.1007/s10484-024-09666-x
  27. Jenkins S, Cross A, Osman H, et al. Effectiveness of biofeedback on blood pressure in patients with hypertension: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hum Hypertens. 2024;38:719-727. doi: 10.1038/s41371-024-00937-y
  28. Stern MJ, Guiles RAF, Gevirtz R. HRV biofeedback for pediatric irritable bowel syndrome and functional abdominal pain: A clinical replication series. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2014;39(34):287-291. doi: 10.1007/s10484-014-9261-x
  29. OECD. Neurotechnology Toolkit to Support the OECD Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology. Paris: OECD; 2024. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/sti/emerging-tech/neurotechnology-toolkit.htm [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  30. IEEE Standards Association. IEEE P2731: Standard for a Unified Terminology for Brain-Computer Interfaces. IEEE; 2022. Available from: https://sagroups.ieee.org/2731 [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  31. Chile. Constitutional Amendment No. 21.383 Establishing Neurorights. Santiago, Chile: Government of Chile; 2021. Available from: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idnorma=1167604 [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  32. European Parliamentary Research Service. The Protection of Neurodata in the EU: Legal and Policy Options. Brussels: European Parliament; 2024. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/eprs_ stu(2024)757807 [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  33. NIH BRAIN Initiative Neuroethics Working Group. Meeting Summaries. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2024. Available from: https://braininitiative.nih.gov [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  34. Livanis E, Voultsos P, Vadikolias K, Pantazakos P, Tsaroucha A. Understanding the ethical issues of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs): a blessing or the beginning of a dystopian future? Cureus. 2024;16(4):e58243. doi: 10.7759/cureus.58243
  35. Steinert S, Friedrich O. Wired emotions: Ethical issues of affective brain-computer interfaces. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020;26:351-367. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00087-2
  36. UNESCO. Towards an International Instrument: Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology. Paris, France: UNESCO; 2025. Available from: https://www. unesco.org/en/ethics-neurotech/recommendation [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  37. Carey G, Malbon E, Carey N, Joyce A, Crammond B, Carey A. Systems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e009002. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009002
  38. Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Ford JM. Default mode network activity and connectivity in psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2012;8:49-76. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143049
  39. Menon V. Large-scale brain networks and psychopathology: a unifying triple network model. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011;15(10):483-506. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.08.003
  40. Guger C, Allison B, Editors K, Gan W, Miller K. Brain- Computer Interface Research: A State-of-the-Art Summary 8. In: Brain-Computer Interface Research. Berlin: Springer; 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-49583-1
  41. Enriquez-Geppert S, Huster RJ, Herrmann CS. EEG-neurofeedback as a tool to modulate cognition and behavior: A review tutorial. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:51. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00051
  42. Simmons WK, Avery JA, Barcalow JC, Bodurka J, Drevets WC, Bellgowan P. Keeping the body in mind: Insula functional organization and functional connectivity integrate interoceptive, exteroceptive, and emotional awareness. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013;34(11):2944-2958. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22113
  43. Sitaram R, Ros T, Stoeckel L, et al. Closed-loop brain training: The science of neurofeedback. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017;18(2):86-100. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.164
  44. Fernández-Álvarez J, Grassi M, Colombo D, Botella C, Cipresso P, Perna G, et al. Efficacy of bio- and neurofeedback for depression: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2022;52(2):201-216. doi: 10.1017/S0033291721004396
  45. Klimesch W. α-band oscillations, attention, and controlled access to stored information. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012;16(12):606-617. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.007
  46. Reiter K, Andersen SB, Carlsson J. Neurofeedback treatment and posttraumatic stress disorder: effectiveness of neurofeedback on posttraumatic stress disorder and the optimal choice of protocol. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2016;204(2):69- 77. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000418
  47. Gruzelier JH. EEG-neurofeedback for optimising performance. I: A review of cognitive and affective outcome in healthy participants. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014;44:124-141. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.09.015
  48. Alexander WH, Brown JW. Hierarchical error representation: A computational model of anterior cingulate and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Neural Comput. 2015;27:2354-2410. doi: 10.1162/NECO_a_00779
  49. Zhao Z, Yao S, Li K, Sindermann C, et al. Real-time functional connectivity-informed neurofeedback of amygdala-frontal pathways reduces anxiety. Psychother Psychosom. 2019;88(1):5-15. doi: 10.1159/000496057
  50. Herwig U, Jäncke L, Scherpiet S, et al. Training emotion regulation through real-time fMRI neurofeedback of amygdala activity. Neuroimage. 2019;184:687-696. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.068
  51. Van Den Heuvel MP, Hulshoff Pol HE. Exploring the brain network: A review on resting-State fMRI connectivity. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2010;20(8):519-534. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2010.03.008
  52. Deco G, Corbetta M. The dynamical balance of the brain at rest. Neuroscientist. 2011;17(1):107-123. doi: 10.1177/1073858409354384
  53. Jensen MP, Hakimian S, Sherlin LH, Fregni F. New insights into neuromodulatory approaches for the treatment of pain. J Pain. 2008;9(3):193-199. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.11.003
  54. Nichols TE, Holmes AP. Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002;15(1):1-25. doi: 10.1002/hbm.1058
  55. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 43. Information technology — Brain-computer interfaces — Vocabulary. (Edition 1, 2025). Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2025. Available from: https://www.iso.org/ standard/83268.html [Last accessed 2025 Aug 23]
  56. Soldado-Magraner J, Antonietti A, French J, et al. Applying the IEEE BRAIN neuroethics framework to intra-cortical brain-computer interfaces. J Neural Eng. 2024;21(2):022001. doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/ad3852
  57. IEEE Brain. 2024 IEEE Brain Discovery and Neurotechnology Workshop-Program and Materials. Chicago, IL: IEEE; 2024. Available from: https://brain.ieee.org/2024/ieee-brain-discovery-neurotechnology-workshop [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  58. Richards D, Richardson T. Computer-based psychological treatments for depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2012;32(4):329-342. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.02.004
  59. Millán JR, Rupp R, Müller-Putz GR, et al. Combining brain-computer interfaces and assistive technologies: State-of-the-art and challenges. Front Neurosci. 2010;4:161. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2010.00161
  60. Royal Society. Digital healthcare for the management of functional neurological disorders. November 25, 2024. Available from: https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2024/11/digital-healthcare/ [Last accessed 2025 Aug 23].
  61. Schoenberg PLA, David AS. Biofeedback for psychiatric disorders: A systematic review. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2014;39(2):109-135. doi: 10.1007/s10484-014-9246-9
  62. Dudarev V, Barral O, Radaeva M, Davis G, Enns JT. Night time heart rate predicts next-day pain in fibromyalgia and primary back pain. Pain Rep. 2024;9(2):e1119. doi: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000001119
  63. European Union. Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847; 2025. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/327/oj/eng [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  64. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Technology Assessment: Brain-Computer Interfaces: Applications, Challenges, and Policy Options. GAO-25-106952. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office; 2024. Available from: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao- 25-106952 [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  65. Global Privacy Assembly. Resolution on Neurotechnology, Human Rights, Data Protection and Privacy. 46th Closed Session of the Global Privacy Assembly (GPA); Bermuda; 2024. Available from: https://globalprivacyassembly. com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Resolution-on- Neurotechnologies.pdf [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  66. Fox RI, Fox CM, McCoy SS. Emerging treatment for Sjögren’s disease: A review of recent phase II and III trials. Expert Opin Emerg Drugs. 2023;28(2):107-120. doi: 10.1080/14728214.2023.2209720
  67. Hu C, Wang L, Huang J, et al. Regional brain function study in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. Arthritis Res Ther. 2025;27:93. doi: 10.1186/s13075-025-03554-3
  68. Fujieda Y, Sakiyama K, Abe N, et al. Right insular cortex-thalamic functional connectivity as a potential marker for fatigue in systemic lupus erythematosus and primary Sjögren’s syndrome. Abstract presented at: American College of Rheumatology Convergence 2023; published in Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023;75(suppl 9). Available from: https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/ right-insular-cortex-thalamic-functional-connectivity-as-a-potential-marker-for-fatigue-in-systemic-lupus-erythematosus-and-primary-sjogrens-syndrome/
  69. Patel K, Sivan M, Henshaw J, Jones AKP. Neurofeedback for chronic pain. In: Smart Biofeedback - Perspectives and Applications. London: IntechOpen; 2020. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.93826
  70. Jensen MP, Gertz KJ, Kupper AE, et al. Steps toward developing an EEG biofeedback treatment for chronic pain. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2013;38(2):101-108. doi: 10.1007/s10484-013-9214-9
  71. Cornejo-Plaza MI, Cippitani R, Pasquino V. Chilean supreme court ruling on the protection of brain activity: Neurorights, personal data protection, and neurodata. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1330439. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1330439
  72. World Health Organization. Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders 2022-2031. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2025. Available from: https:// www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240076624 [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  73. World Health Organization. Landscape analysis of the opportunities and challenges for neurotechnology in global health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2025. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240109049 [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  74. World Economic Forum. The neurosecurity stack: How we balance neurotechnology’s opportunity with security. Geneva: World Economic Forum; October 2025. Available from: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/10/ neurosecurity-balance-neurotechnology-opportunity-with-security/ [Last accessed 2025 Aug 23]
  75. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Science and Tech Spotlight: Brain-Computer Interfaces (GAO-22-106118). Washington, DC: GAO; 2022. Available from: https:// www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-106118 [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  76. Maiseli B, Abdalla AT, Massawe LV, et al. Brain-computer interface: Trend, challenges, and threats. Brain Inform. 2023;10(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s40708-023-00199-3
  77. Reilly CM. Brain-machine interfaces as commodities: Exchanging mind for matter. Linacre Q. 2020;87(4):387-398. doi: 10.1177/0024363920930882
  78. Sabio J, Williams NS, McArthur GM, Badcock NA. A scoping review on the use of consumer-grade EEG devices for research. PLoS One. 2024;19(3):e0291186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291186
  79. Craik A, González-España JJ, Alamir A, et al. Design and validation of a low-cost mobile eeg-based brain-computer interface. Sensors (Basel). 2023;23(13):5930. doi: 10.3390/s23135930
  80. EMOTIV. EPOC X-14-Channel Wireless EEG Headset. Available from: https://www.emotiv.com/products/epoc-x [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 23].
  81. OECD. Brain-computer interfaces and the governance system. Paris, France: OECD; 2022. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/ reports/2022/04/brain-computer-interfaces-and-the-governance-system_a8c5d63c/18d86753-en.pdf [Last accessed 2025 Aug 23]
  82. Xia RT, Yang S. Factors influencing the social acceptance of brain-computer interface technology among Chinese general public: An exploratory study. Front Hum Neurosci. 2024;18:1423382. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1423382.
  83. Arias López MPA, Ong BA, Borrat Frigola X, et al. Digital literacy as a new determinant of health: A scoping review. PLOS Digit Health. 2023;2(10):e000279. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000279
  84. Weber LA, Ethofer T, Ehlis AC. Predictors of neurofeedback training outcome: A systematic review. Neuroimage Clin. 2020;27:102301. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102301
  85. Nijboer F, Birbaumer N, Kübler A. The influence of psychological state and motivation on brain–computer interface performance in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis – a longitudinal study. Front Neurosci. 2010;4:55. doi:10.3389/fnins.2010.00055
  86. Pfurtscheller G, Neuper C, Flotzinger D, Pregenzer M. EEG-based discrimination between imagination of right and left hand movement. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1997;103(6):642-651. doi: 10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00080-1
Share
Back to top
Journal of Clinical and Basic Psychosomatics, Electronic ISSN: 2972-4414 Print ISSN: 3060-8562, Published by AccScience Publishing