Architectural Spaces for Workplace Neurosurveillance: A Critical Analysis of Ethical Boundaries and Neurorights
Keywords:
workplace neurosurveillance, intelligent architecture, mental privacy, neurorights, neuroergonomicsAbstract
Introduction: This study examines how the integration of neurotechnologies into workplace environments is transforming cognitive and emotional monitoring within organizations. In a context of accelerated digitalization, devices such as mobile EEG, portable BCIs, and neuroergonomic systems enable the recording of attention, stress, and mental workload, redefining the role of intelligent architecture. Elements such as sensor-based lighting and neuroadaptive workstations can enhance performance but also generate tensions related to mental privacy, worker autonomy, and psychological integrity, especially when they influence creativity, decision-making, and emotional self-regulation. Method: An integrative review was conducted using twenty-five Scopus-indexed articles (2012–2025) on neurosurveillance, intelligent architecture, and neurorights. The evidence included studies using mobile EEG in real work environments, research on cognitive surveillance, and theoretical work on mental privacy in organizational contexts. Thematic coding and conceptual triangulation were applied to synthesize interdisciplinary findings. Additionally, a conceptual simulation of sensor-enhanced work scenarios was developed to explore potential effects on stress, creativity, and adaptive behavior. Results: The analysis indicates that neurosurveillance increases stress levels by 28–47 %, raises cognitive load, and promotes self-censorship when neurophysiological indicators are perceived as evaluative mechanisms. The presence of integrated sensors reduces creativity and flexibility by 15–25 %, and heightens physiological fluctuations associated with anxiety by up to 30 %. Between 60–70 % of participants expressed concern about the use of their neurodata. However, moderate improvements (10–18 %) in concentration and well-being were observed when implementation was voluntary and oriented toward personal feedback. Conclusions: Intelligent architectural spaces function as neurotechnological systems that may support cognitive ergonomics but also pose significant risks when used for institutional control. Their implementation requires frameworks grounded in neurorights and strict protections for mental privacy.
References
Alegre, S. (2021). Protecting Freedom of Thought in the Digital Age. 165.
2. Atici-Ulusu, H., Taskapilioglu, O., & Gunduz, T. (2024). A neuroergonomics approach to investigate the mental workload of drivers in real driving settings. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 103, 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2024.04.004
3. Brown, C. M. L. (2024). Neurorights, Mental Privacy, and Mind Reading. Neuroethics, 17(2), 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-024-09568-z
4. Bublitz, J. C. (2025). Freedom of Thought and Digital Technologies: Operationalizing State Obligations for Social Media, Virtual Reality, and Neurotechnology. Human Rights Review, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-025-00751-0
5. Dehais, F., Lafont, A., Roy, R., & Fairclough, S. (2020). A Neuroergonomics Approach to Mental Workload, Engagement and Human Performance. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, 268. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00268
6. Demazure, T., Karran, A., Léger, P.-M., Labonté-LeMoyne, É., Sénécal, S., Fredette, M., & Babin, G. (2021). Enhancing Sustained Attention. Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, 63(6), 653-668.
7. Wascher, E., Reiser, J., Rinkenauer G., Larrá, M., Dreger, F., Schneider, D., Kasthaus M., Getzmann S., Gutberlet M., Arnau S., (2023). Neuroergonomics on the Go: An Evaluation of the Potential of Mobile EEG for Workplace Assessment and Design. Human Factors, 65(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211007707
8. Gamboa, P., Varandas, R., Rodrigues, J., Cepeda, C., Quaresma, C., & Gamboa, H. (2022). Attention Classification Based on Biosignals during Standard Cognitive Tasks for Occupational Domains. Computers, 11(4), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11040049
9. Hertz, N. (2022). Neurorights – Do We Need New Human Rights? A Reconsideration of the Right to Freedom of Thought. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4726652
10. Higuera-Trujillo, J. L., Llinares, C., & Macagno, E. (2021). The Cognitive-Emotional Design and Study of Architectural Space: A Scoping Review of Neuroarchitecture and Its Precursor Approaches. Sensors, 21(6), 2193. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062193
11. Hopkins, P. D., & Fiser, H. L. (2017). «This Position Requires Some Alteration of Your Brain»: On the Moral and Legal Issues of Using Neurotechnology to Modify Employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(4), 783-797.
12. Istace, T. (2025). Establishing Neurorights: New Rights versus Derived Rights. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 17(1), 121-139. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huae042
13. Khan, R., Vernooij, J., Salvatori, D., & Hierck, B. P. (2025). Assessing Cognitive Load Using EEG and Eye-Tracking in 3-D Learning Environments: A Systematic Review. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 9(9), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9090099
14. Lavazza, A. (2018). Freedom of Thought and Mental Integrity: The Moral Requirements for Any Neural Prosthesis. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, 307101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00082
15. Lavrinovica, I., Judvaitis, J., Laksis, D., Skromule, M., & Ozols, K. (2024). A Comprehensive Review of Sensor-Based Smart Building Monitoring and Data Gathering Techniques. Applied Sciences, 14(21), 10057. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142110057
16. López-Silva, P., Wajnerman-Paz, A., & Molnar-Gabor, F. (2024). Neurotechnological Applications and the Protection of Mental Privacy: An Assessment of Risks. Neuroethics, 17(2), 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-024-09565-2
17. Martinez, W., Benerradi, J., Midha, S., Maior, H. A., & Wilson, M. L. (2022). Understanding the Ethical Concerns for Neurotechnology in the Future of Work. 2022 Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3533406.3533423
18. Muhl, E., & Andorno, R. (2023). Neurosurveillance in the workplace: Do employers have the right to monitor employees’ minds? Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 5, 1245619. https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2023.1245619
19. Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
20. Rotenberg, A., Anderson-Redick, S., Kiss, Z. H. T., & Illes, J. (2025). The neurotechnology patent landscape in a time of neuroethics. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 633. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04757-4
21. S, S., S, C., & R, K. (2024). Color and brightness at work: Shedding some light on mind wandering. Brain and Behavior, 14(9). https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.70020
22. Salles, A., & Farisco, M. (2024). Neuroethics and AI ethics: A proposal for collaboration. BMC Neuroscience, 25, 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12868-024-00888-7
23. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
24. Traunwieser, S. (2025). Neurodata-based headsets for the (digital) employee well-being – responsibilities between benefit and harm. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 41(1), 64-87. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-02-2024-0044
25. Yuste, R., Goering, S., Arcas, B. A. y, Bi, G., Carmena, J. M., Carter, A., Fins, J. J., Friesen, P., Gallant, J., Huggins, J. E., Illes, J., Kellmeyer, P., Klein, E., Marblestone, A., Mitchell, C., Parens, E., Pham, M., Rubel, A., Sadato, N., … Wolpaw, J. (2017). Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature, 551(7679), 159-163. https://doi.org/10.1038/551159
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Carlos Quedas Campoy, Amanda Maria Rabelo Souza, Cleide Izidoro, Raul Emanuel Scanavino (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
