Programme link: Full programme
Event schedule: Detailed schedule
Recordings are available on the membership resource page: Membership page
Shaping the Future of Neurotechnology for Neurodivergent Children and Infants
On 15–16 September 2025, the RESPECT 4 Neurodevelopment (R4N) network gathered at the Ortus Centre, Denmark Hill, in London for our last exclusively in-person annual conference—and what an incredible two days it was! With over 100 attendees each day, the venue buzzed with energy as experts from across disciplines explored the road ahead for neurotechnology. We were proud to support the Maudsley Charity while hosting this milestone event, and grateful to our sponsors Tobii and Gowerlabs, and funders UKRI for making it possible.
Professor Eva Loth welcomed everyone to the event and walked us through how much has been achieved in a very short space of time (3 years). This years’ conference was not only to recap on what has been achieved but where the gaps remain and how they can be addressed.
Three years in, R4N has built a thriving community driving neurotechnology forward.
This conference wasn’t just a recap—it was a launchpad for the next chapter. Together, we’re shaping tools that families want and professionals need.
Highlights You Don’t Want to Miss
Inspiring Keynotes:
Professor Mark Johnson (University of Cambridge) took us on a whirlwind tour of child development research and how methods and techniques have evolved —from Piaget’s early observation techniques to cutting-edge neuroimaging and AI-driven tools. So often new discoveries come from new methods, yet methods or techniques used can equally constrain the theories that can be tested. He combined all this together within the context of genetics and the need to use these techniques to now focus on neurodiversity approaches, where individual differences and alternative pathways can be better understood in action.
Professor William Fifer (Columbia University) has worked tireless, along with his team of colleagues, to understand early environmental factors that affect foetal and infant behaviour / brain development. In his talk he particularly focused on maternal mediating factors (especially sleep) on the developing foetus / infant, aimed at early detection and timely interventions. Illustrating how sleep is potentially a good place to unlock biomarkers for early neurodevelopmental health, he made an essential point that it is a modifiable risk factor and linked to so many aspects of cognitive flexibility. In describing his more recent work in South Africa we learned about multiple parameters in measuring sleep and how neurotechnology has helped measure sleep architecture.
The Roadmap for the Future:
Together with Ilias Tachisidis, we tackled the big question: How do we build neurotechnologies that truly serve neurodivergent children? We saw what a potential roadmap might look like as Ilias set the stage for a 25-year vision of collaboration, innovation, and regulation. This was followed by a fruitful discussion among panel members from industry (Dr Rufus Mitchell-Heggs), engineering (Dave Delpy), participatory research (Pierre Violland), and clinical consultancy (Tom Arichi) and Cognitive Neuroscientist (Professor Eva Loth). The session was highly insightful—yet it highlighted the immense work ahead and the barriers to creating an integrated, regulated approach that can keep pace with rapidly evolving AI and emerging technologies, ensuring they remain practical, meaningful and ethically responsible.
The need for systemic change through a coordinated adoption approach was a thread throughout the panel discussion. Tom Arichi outlined the need for better cross-professional communication, sharing research and access to technological advances, and providing accessible training with consistent guidelines. Eva Loth continued the discussion along the need for priorities to be more aligned between clinicians, parents, and industry around efficacy, considering lifelong costs and benefits, and implementing safeguards for data privacy, diagnostic accuracy, societal impact, and equitable healthcare access. Dave Delpy highlighted how integrating technology developed outside labs into meaningful research remains challenging especially in relation to precision medicine. Pierre Violland spoke about how neurotechnology offers potential for monitoring tools that provide self-insight, but true market alignment requires collaboration with neurodivergent individuals in leadership roles. Rufus Mitchell-Heggs spoke about how global regulation is inconsistent but the capabilities of fingerprinting the brain are within reach. It was concluded that harmonized standards and secure data sharing are critical (including third parties), with engineers and professionals taking responsibility and holding industry accountable.
Showcasing Innovation – from co- production, participatory research perspective to pump-prime studies:
In Session 2, R4N awardees Dr Nick Puts and Dr Louisa Gossé delivered inspiring talks on their pump-prime studies, showcasing how co-production can transform research.
Dr Nick Puts shared his fascinating project on sensory differences in autism, exploring how brain chemistry—specifically excitation-inhibition balance (GABA and glutamate)—shapes perception, appraisal, and responsiveness to stimuli. Using cutting-edge technology like a 7-Tesla MRI scanner, the study dives deep into the neural underpinnings of these differences. What makes this work stand out is its co-design approach: feedback from a PPI committee led to the inclusion of motor differences and refined sensory stimuli within real-life contexts (think: a touch from a partner versus a stranger). The team also collaborated on designing questionnaires, ensuring the research stays grounded in lived experience (e.g. sensory triggers questionnaire).
Dr. Louisa Gossé explained why tracking sleep in babies is crucial, given its links to mental health, emotion regulation, and memory. Sleep problems are common in neurodivergent children, and Louisa’s research explores whether sleep could act as a protective factor. Using EEG and advanced fNIRS, her team is identifying infant sleep quality signatures to develop personalized interventions—like sound-based support during slow-wave sleep. Importantly, the technology was co-designed with parents, incorporating feedback to make devices practical for home use, with ongoing design improvements driven by user experience.
Day 1 wrapped up with four unique talks from experts in co-production and participatory research.
Geraldine Bliss, parent of a child with Phelan-McDermid Syndrome (PMS), shared her inspiring journey founding CureSHANK six years ago. Her beautifully illustrated talk showed how the charity drives research into biomarkers and precision medicine, guided by a parent-patient model. She highlighted major challenges in using neurotechnology for behavioral science—especially sensory sensitivities—and the urgent need for tools that work in real-world settings to reduce burden and capture meaningful data, particularly around sleep.
Next, Dr. Beth Oakley from King’s College London presented the Molehill Mountain app for anxiety, showing how participatory research shaped every stage—from design and protocols to launch. Feedback from advisory groups continues to refine trials and optimize the app.
We then heard from Steve Lukito and Dorian Poulton on the RE-STAR project, which created a youth research panel to embed co-production throughout—from grant applications to EEG protocols. Their neurodiversity-affirmative approach helped young participants feel prepared, comfortable, and engaged.
Finally, Sarah Douglas and Professor Dheeraj Rai, from the University of Bristol, reflected on seven years of “genuine co-production” in the STRATA study, exploring attitudes toward medication trials for anxiety. They shared practical strategies for involving advisory groups early, gathering feedback, and improving communication with participants.
The session ended with a lively panel discussion, sparking ideas on how to make co-production the norm in research.
Early Career Spotlight:
The Chair of the Early Career Network, Dr Rianne Haartsen, showcased the phenomenal work that they have done, events that have been put on throughout the 3 years and are still organising more!
With 22 posters, 2 rapid-fire presentations by Liuni Zou, Qianwen Chang , and competitive prizes, the event was a celebration of progress—and a reminder of the work ahead. First prize went to Antonia Jordan-Barros, second prize went to Jess Brown, & third prize Eloise Funnell.
Ethics, Co-Production & Neurotech: Big Ideas from the Symposium
The Ethics Symposium was long-awaited and didn’t disappoint. Rooted in the network’s responsibility pillar, it explored what bioethics means for research today within the framework of neurotechnology for children. Our lived-experience panel (Mary Doherty, Sarah Douglas, Pierre Violland) set the scene: What should neuroethics look like? How do we build partnerships that truly support individuals? It is by co-designing technology that supports them day-to-day, that are not defined by diagnosis but more supporting specific issues, identifying uses for neurotechnology in the community. Greater rigger for ethical and valid forms of diagnosis that improves access for all was also discussed, with industry developing ethical solutions for neurodivergent people that are indorsed by neurodivergent people themselves before they come to market.
Professor Ilina Singh drove the point home in her exceptionally relevant talk on ethics of inclusion and representation in research on neurotechnologies in neurodivergent children— young voices matter. Her creative use of new methodologies to capture young children’s views was valuable, such as pictorial maps for interviews showed how participatory research can thrive, not fade.
Then came the future-facing challenge: neurotechnology ethics. Professor Paul Appelbaum opened his talk with UNESCO’s definition of what neurotechnology is and real-world dilemmas—privacy risks, device abandonment, and dignity concerns with a fascinating range of examples from the field. We were reminded of the fundamentals of respect for human dignity, problems of abandonment from devices no longer being continued as often developed by start-up companies that fall flat, and the issues of compatibility across systems or data privacy that can become problematic over time when companies merge or third parties get involved. All these factors contribute to real life ethical issues that potentially affect ongoing support an individual will receive overtime.
What followed was a set of talks from diverse disciplines on bioethics culminating in a roundtable discussion which left one thing crystal clear: ethical regulation, templates and guidelines and collaboration between different stakeholders aren’t optional—they’re urgent:
Professor Marcella Rietschel, a genetic epidemiologist, reviewed the historical context of genetic research in relation to mental illness, citing unethical experiments worldwide that underscore the need for vigilance regarding data use and interpretation. Today, ethical dilemmas persist—such as whether researchers have an obligation to report genetic findings—raising further questions about how this information should be managed, its implications, and regulatory oversight. She emphasized the critical need for education and collaboration in addressing these challenges.
Professor Clare Elwell, a world-renowned bioengineer, looked back at the 80’s early scanner Hamamatsu NIRO 1000 to the present day, huge bulky equipment with floppy disks to now portable head gear, moving to fNIRS (functionally related changes). She explained how this was a journey of engineering bridging unmet needs in research with data outputs that became more usable for analysis, more channels driven by what was thought to be needed and useful at the time requiring innovative solutions. Now the technology itself has opened a whole new horizon of brain imaging and understanding the brain yet Clare expressed her concerns that the landscape is confusing and time to take stock for the future, with lots of interest and lots of stakeholders and endless opportunities comes potential dilemmas of ‘cognitive fingerprinting’ both methodological and neuroethical!! End users expectations are driving innovation towards personalised approaches to “brain health” yet more clarity is needed in terms of access to data, ownership with open dialogue and collaboration across areas of expertise (industry partners, institutions, regulators, and governments).
Dr Kate MacDuffie, a clinician in paediatric bioethics, talked about her work with parent perceptions of predictive neurotechnologies for autistic children. She asked parents if they would be interested in for instance predictive MRI technology for diagnosis? Nearly all said they were interested as it would speed up diagnosis and enable access to support, resources and interventions earlier and be more prepared. Evaluating this research Kate makes important recommendations for researchers using such tools to consider the strength of their obligations to provide ancillary care such as assisting families to connect to services or support within the communities, especially when participants dependance on the researcher might be high and what are their vulnerabilities.
Dr Teresa del Bianco outlined the Ethics Charter that she is developing. Dr. Teresa del Bianco presented the Ethics Charter, which she co-developed as part of the AIMS-2-TRIALS autism project in collaboration with an ethics working group.
Why is this important?
Current ethics frameworks primarily emphasize compliance with procedural ethics—ensuring research methods are approved by institutions and safeguarding participants’ rights to safety, anonymity, and privacy. However, research extends far beyond data collection. Years may pass between data collection and publication, during which dissemination strategies or study aims can change. As a result, the eventual societal impact may no longer align with the ethical principles established at the outset.
Research evolves naturally, influenced by emerging findings, advances in neurotechnologies, and shifting community priorities. These dynamics must be considered. To address this, Teresa advocates embedding “relational ethics”—a framework that fosters ongoing, mutual relationships between researchers, communities and stakeholders, defining rights and responsibilities as these relationships evolve.
The Ethics Charter articulates these principles by integrating procedural and relational ethics under the PARTNERS principles, providing a foundation for ethically responsive research throughout its lifecycle.
The afternoon of the ethics symposium was concluded with a fruitful round table discussion comprising of the speakers, Mirko Uljarević, Stanford University in the USA and two leads from the network (Professor Eva Loth and Tom Arichi).
