Welcome to the Ultimate Neuroscience Lab: Your Smartphone

Digital devices can provide better and more useful information than the typical studies conducted with U.S. college students as participants

Grey-haired woman types into a smartphone.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Back in 2013, a seminal U.N. report highlighted that more people have mobile phones than flush toilets. Today we can leverage smart phones and wearables to create more representative data pools of our global population than studies done with WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) research participants—in other words, typical U.S. college students.

Also, can you guesstimate how many times the average person touches a cell phone in a day? The answer is approximately 3,000 times.

A rich tapestry of our lives can increasingly be woven together by aggregating and analyzing each touch—and each conversation, oral or written, held by billions of people, every day.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Such data have already proved invaluable in bridging dozens if not hundreds of research gaps by collecting real-world, “ecologically valid” information from people in their natural day-to-day lives rather than in the artificial environment of a typical lab. Further, the information can help us bring objective, quantitative data down the line to psychology and psychiatry researchers. Most research still attempts to quantify assessments of mental illnesses, such as depression, based on patients’ biased subjective reporting.

Neuroscientists and technologists are hard at work developing earlier and more accurate diagnoses for a variety of disorders, as well as personalized therapies for patients and preventive interventions for the general public. The data can be acquired through active means (what you type) and passive observations (how you type). All of this research can be conducted using inexpensive sensors embedded in smartphones and other personal devices.

Once this wealth of data is at hand, machine learning and artificial intelligence will offer opportunities to quickly analyze massive data sets acquired from these sensors to formulate diagnoses, develop treatment regimens and even make predictions about the risk of mental health issues for both individuals and the community as a whole.

Given that biological markers and diagnostic criteria for mental health conditions remain sparse and unclear, the rhythm and patterns discerned from the data gathered offers a quantitative window on mental health. The ultimate goal is to offer universal access to accurate diagnoses and timely, effective, personalized therapies to the planet’s eight billion human minds.

Digital technologies are beginning to revive the sleepy field of psychiatry. We can utilize commercial-grade technologies and data sets and help apply these findings into health care practice much faster than the typical lag time of 17 years. In a nutshell, digital psychiatry can democratize applied research as citizens choose to use apps to self-manage their mental health and self-care and consent to share their data with researchers and digital developers.

While there is enormous opportunity, we also see thorny ethical issues. Who will have access to the data, and for what purpose? App and device users do not always know what data they are sharing and with whom. Developers, ethicists, citizens and policy makers must find practical resolutions as to how to manage trade-offs for benefits and risks, data protection and privacy, the accuracy of the underlying algorithms for machine learning and artificial intelligence, informed consent protocols, and more.

But the opportunity is real. Every smartphone is a lab, and every smartphone user is a scientist in the making.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Karen Rommelfanger is a neuroscientist, neurotech ethicist and strategist. She directs the Neuroethics and Neurotechnology Innovation Collaboratory, which is characterized as a "think-and-do tank." At Emory University, she is an associate professor in the departments of neurology and psychiatry and director of the Emory Center for Ethics' neuroethics program.

More by Karen Rommelfanger

Álvaro Fernández Ibáñez runs SharpBrains, an independent market research firm tracking applied neuroscience and digital technologies. He serves on the advisory boards of the Global Teacher Prize and SEK Education Group, and he co-authored The SharpBrains Guide to Brain Fitness and the Spanish-language book El Cerebro Que Cura.

More by Álvaro Fernández Ibáñez

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe