Tag Archives: brain implants

Vancouver ‘Robo Cop’? a Neuralink brain implant story

Leave a reply

Before diving into the story, Vancouver Police Department’s ‘robo cop’ was diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) a few years ago and for anyone unfamiliar with the disease, here’s more from the ALS Wikipedia entry, Note: Links have been removed,

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease (MND) or Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a rare terminal neurodegenerative disease defined by the progressive loss of both upper and lower motor neurons that normally control voluntary muscle contraction. ALS is the most common of the motor neuron diseases.[8] ALS often presents with gradual muscle stiffness, twitches, weakness, and wasting. Motor neuron loss typically continues until the ability to eat, speak, move, and breathe without mechanical support is lost. At least 50% of people with ALS experience significant changes in thinking and behavior, with 15% of individuals going on to develop frontotemporal dementia.[9][10] …

Lee Marten, right, is a Vancouver police sergeant who is one of the first Canadians to be implanted with a Neuralink brain chip in a bid to help him with symptoms of ALS or spinal injuries. His wife, Lisa, is seen in Toronto Western Hospital on May 20 before his procedure. (Submitted by Lisa Marten)

That prognosis makes the decision to go ahead with an experimental brain implant instantly understandable. Lyndsay Duncombe’s July 2, 2026 article for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) news online website details the officer’s and his family’s story,

Sitting in his wheelchair, hands at his side, 48-year-old Lee Marten looks at the computer screen in front of him and imagines moving the cursor across the screen. As quickly as he thinks it, the arrow shifts. 

Marten, who is a sergeant with the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) currently on leave, uses the cursor to type letters on a digital keyboard — as fast as, or faster, than human fingers. Right away, the latest Toronto Blue Jays score pops up. 

“I know it seems like science fiction,” he said. “But here I am and it works.” 

On May 20 [2026], Marten became one of the first Canadian ALS patients to receive a Neuralink brain implant, as part of a clinical trial at University Health Network’s (UHN) Toronto Western Hospital. 

He is just the 26th person in the world to undergo the procedure, which is being tested on people unable to move because of ALS or spinal injuries. At least two other Canadians, both quadriplegics, are also known to have received the implant in Canada, and a dual American-Canadian citizen with ALS has had the procedure done in the U.S.

Neuralink is owned by controversial trillionaire [not now on August 5, 2026] Elon Musk, and the hospital has faced criticism for participating in the trial.

But Marten sees the procedure as a chance to improve his quality of life and advance science in a way that could help others. 

“Getting a terminal diagnosis, you don’t have much to look forward to,” he said. 

“This is going to maybe improve my time that I have left, and allow me to be a kind of trailblazer for anyone else going through this.”

Long road to diagnosis

Marten’s symptoms began in April 2022. He was working on the bike patrol with the Vancouver Police Department when his left foot began to drop. 

At first, he thought it was a cycling injury, but he kept losing his balance. A fall off the steps to his garage led to a broken leg.

Doctors attributed the symptoms to a benign brain tumour and Marten had surgery to remove it in March 2024. 

But the mobility problems continued to worsen, and three years after he first felt unwell, the devastating diagnosis came. ALS was destroying the nerve cells in his brain and spinal cord. It is progressive and there is no cure.

…

The disease’s progression varies from patient to patient, but Marten said the hardest part about knowing he will die from ALS is that he won’t be able to watch his children, Rys, 14, and Carys, 11, grow up.

…

“People joke that I’m going to be RoboCop,” he said, laughing, in an interview shortly before the procedure.

“I’m going to be a cyborg, right?” 

…

The Martens’ biggest hope for the surgery was that it would allow him to communicate with family through a computer after he is no longer able to physically speak.

Lisa said this will be helpful with medical decisions, including those around a potential medically-assisted death. 

“We can get his true feelings on what he wants to do,” she said.

…

·

About the implant

Duncombe’s July 2, 2026 article provides some technical details, Note: Links have been removed,

…

The trial at UHN’s Toronto Western Hospital, CAN-PRIME, is one of a handful of Neuralink studies taking part across the world, including ones in the U.S., U.K. and Abu Dhabi.

The procedure involves implanting more than 1,000 electrodes, each thinner than a human hair, into the brain’s motor cortex. Surgeons open the skull and prepare the site, but the electrodes are inserted by a two-metre-tall robot shipped to Toronto from San Francisco. 

“The robot is crucial because it’s much more accurate and precise than a human neurosurgeon could do,” said Dr. Andres Lozano, who leads the neurosurgery team at UHN’s Toronto Western. 

The hospital has faced criticism for participating in the trial, including from an emergency physician who said that Canadian institutions should not work with companies owned by Musk, who was behind U.S. government cuts to global health. Neuralink has also been criticized for how it shares information. 

Lozano said the trial went through a series of ethical screens, and passed all of them. [emphasis mine]

“We jumped at the opportunity to participate because we think the technology is very advanced and we think it really has an opportunity to help patients,” he said, adding that it may be possible in the future for paralyzed patients to control movement of a wheelchair, or even a specialized exoskeleton, through Neuralink brain implants. 

…

A ‘scary’ change in plans

The day of Marten’s surgery started with stress when they learned his surgery would be different from those of previous Neuralink patients. 

For the first time, surgeons would not peel back the dura, or protective layer around the brain. Instead, the robot would insert the chip through the dura.

Lozano called it a “tremendous advance in technology” that could make the operation simpler, and safer. 

But the new plan made Lisa nervous. 

“They didn’t tell us until just before he went in that he was going to be the first person in the world to have the new procedure done,” she said. “That’s where it got a little scary.” 

Lee, on the other hand, was ready.

“I’m like, let’s get ‘er done.” 

The procedure took six hours and doctors say it was a success.

Marten woke up in the ICU with 27 staples in his scalp and a brutal headache. Painkillers helped, and he says about an hour after waking up, he was working with Neuralink engineers to try out the device.

“They told me I was the first out of all the participants [to] do that so soon after surgery,” he said. “And I’m like, well, Canadians are just built tougher.” 

…

Since returning to Vancouver, he has “homework” that consists of doing exercises every couple of days so the Neuralink engineers can monitor how the device is working. It keeps him busy. 

Marten has plans to make playlists for his kids, and play video games with them, even when he can no longer move or speak. 

…

Duncombe’s July 2, 2026 article offers more including images and an embedded video. There’s also a five minute CBC Radio interview of Lindsay Duncombe by Stephen Quinn on CBC’s The Early Edition. Dunscombe was a bit of an ‘easy, breezy’ interview subject who displays the kind of enthusiasm you’d expect from someone presenting science to children; the sort of thing you might expect at a science centre. (Confession: Sometimes I sound like an enthused science fan too.)

It doesn’t seem enough to say bravo to the Martens; they are facing an extraordinarily difficult time with grace and courage.

Now, onto some of the issues not explored in Duncombe’s article or interview.

Ethics and other issues

What struck me in Duncombe’s account is the UHN’s failure to alert the family to a change in how the surgery would be conducted. Six hours notice? Someone had to know that procedure would be different. Wasn’t the surgical team prepped for this change long before? There seems to no reason to give the family only sic hours notice.

Regarding ethics, there’s this somewhat unclear statement in Duncombe’s July 2, 2026 article “Lozano (Dr. Andres Lozano, who leads the neurosurgery team) said the trial went through a series of ethical screens, and passed all of them.”

  • Whose (which institution? Health Canada, University of Toronto, Toronto Western Hospital?) ethical screens?
  • Who (which institution? …) conducted these analyses?
  • How did giving the family six hours notice of a significant change in the operation pass an ethical test?
  • Does the university and/or the hospital have a financial relationship of any kind with Neuralink?
  • Does the surgical lead, Dr. Andres Lozano, have any kind of financial relationship with Neuralink?
  • Is it a good idea to get brain implants from commercial companies?
  • What about Lee Marten’s thoughts? Does he own them?

I have over the years written a number of pieces about brain or neural implants with a focus on some of these questions. This list includes a number of my postings but I’m going to start the list with a CBC article by Sheena Goodyear,

There appears to be some action by the Canadian federal government to address privacy issues with neural data. First, here’s a February 13, 2026 opinion piece by Kris Klein for the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) about the Canadian federal government’s addition to a list of what constitutes sensitive information, Note: A link has been removed,

Privacy professionals have long lived with a comforting illusion: that “sensitive information” is a relatively stable concept. Health data is sensitive. Financial data is sensitive. Social Insurance Numbers are sensitive. This mental list has served us well for years and fits neatly into training decks and compliance frameworks.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada [OPC] has gently reminded us that this list is not static.

This week, the OPC updated its Interpretation Bulletin on Sensitive Information under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which consolidates court decisions and OPC findings on what counts as sensitive personal information and what that means for consent and safeguards. What’s new? Your brain has now officially entered the chat. The OPC added neural data among the types of personal information that will generally be considered sensitive and require a higher degree of protection.

The bulletin explains a principle privacy professionals know well but sometimes treat as theoretical. While some types of information will almost always be sensitive, any personal information can become sensitive depending on context. Names and addresses are the classic example. Usually harmless, unless the context reveals something deeply personal about the individual.

Under PIPEDA, sensitivity drives two critical compliance outcomes: the form of consent an organization must obtain and the level of security safeguards it must apply. In other words, sensitivity is not an academic label. It determines how hard organizations must work to justify collection, explain purposes and protect the data they hold.

Neural data, now formally on the “sensitive personal information” list broadly refers to information derived from the activity of the nervous system, particularly the brain. This can include data collected through technologies such as electroencephalography, brain computer interfaces, neuroimaging tools or wearable devices designed to measure brain signals. In practice, this can range from clinical brain scans to consumer-facing technologies that claim to monitor our focus, fatigue or emotional states.

In a nutshell, it is data generated by your brain doing brain things.

Used responsibly, neural data has clear benefits. In health care, it can support diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation for neurological conditions. In accessibility contexts, brain computer interfaces have the potential to restore communication or mobility for individuals with severe disabilities. In workplace safety and transportation, fatigue detection technologies are being explored as tools to reduce accidents.

At the same time, the risks are not subtle. Neural data is deeply intimate. It may reveal health conditions, cognitive states or emotional responses that individuals themselves do not fully understand or expect to disclose. Unlike a password, you can’t simply reset your brain. Unlike a credit card number, neural patterns are not easily replaced.

The OPC’s decision to flag neural data as sensitive reflects these realities. It signals that some information is so personal that heightened care is not optional. Organizations collecting or experimenting with neural data should assume that meaningful consent must be robust, safeguards must be proportionate and purposes must be tightly defined.

…

The February 10, 2026 Interpretation Bulletin: Sensitive Information from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) mentioned in Klein’s opinion piece specifically mentions neural data but only once, Note: A link has been removed,

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has added “neural data” to the list of personal information that will generally be considered sensitive and require a higher degree of protection. See the section: Application by the Courts and the OPC in Different Contexts.

…

However, the PIPEDA could be scrapped for new legislation introduced on June 15, 2026 as described in a federal government backgrounder,

Today [June 16, 2026], the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-36, an Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act (PPCDA), to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act [PIPEDA] and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

…

In a June 17, 2026 blog posting on his companies website (CloudForce) Anton Kuznetsov outlines changes in the proposed bill C-36 that will affect Canadian businesses, Note: Links have been removed,

…

Why Canada Needed a New Privacy Law

PIPEDA has governed commercial privacy for 25 years. It was built for a world without cloud infrastructure, AI-driven decision-making, or mass data brokerage. Its enforcement model reflects that: the Privacy Commissioner investigates, recommends, and can apply to Federal Court, but cannot impose fines directly. The maximum penalty for a violation is $100,000.

That limitation has consequences. In 2024-25, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner received 686 breach reports from private-sector businesses under PIPEDA — affecting over 20 million Canadians. Complaints to the OPC rose 32% in the same period. (OPC 2024-25 Annual Report) The average cost of a Canadian data breach reached CA$6.98 million in 2025 — a 10.4% increase year-over-year. (IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 – Canada) The enforcement regime was not designed for this environment.

Bill C-36 is the Carney government’s response — a revised version of Bill C-27, which died on the Order Paper when Parliament prorogued in January 2025. (IAPP, Canada’s Bill C-36 introduces privacy reforms, enforcement changes)

What Changes: PIPEDA to PPCDA

Bill C-36 enacts the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act (PPCDA), which replaces Part 1 of PIPEDA — the commercial privacy section. PIPEDA itself survives in narrowed form, renamed the *Electronic Documents Act*, covering only its electronic documents and signatures provisions.

…

Dr. Michael Geist, law professor at the University of Ottawa holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law and more) offers a rather peppery analysis of the proposed legislation in a June 15, 2026 blog posting and another on June 18, 2026 on his eponymous website.

I have not been able to find a reference to neural data or any other neural implant issues in the discussion about Bill C-36. If someone has located something, please let me know in the Comments.

In the end

Given the same circumstances, if I had been presented with the choice that the Martens were given, I too would have opted for the implant. Desperation will drive you to places you might not visit elsewise.

That six hour notice of a change prior to the operation? It rings alarm bells and brings to mind “move fast and break things” usually accompanied by “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission,” both of them favourites in the technology sector. Neuralink, after all, is a company owned by Elon Musk who is not famed for his deliberation or thoughtfulness and his companies are not known for their openness (see: 2025’s “The Tesla Files; a Whistleblower, a Leak, a Fight for Truth : the Inside Story of Musk’s Empire” by Sönke Iwersen for more about Musk’s Tesla operations [focus on European operations] and its level of secrecy).

There are other issues as well, what happens if the company goes out of business or discontinues this particular product?

I don’t imagine the federal government will manage to cover every contingency but it is concerning that Prime Minister Carney’s Liberals are in such a rush to stimulate ‘innovation’ that they appear oblivious to the implications of technology such as computer-brain interfaces (CBI) and more. For many, (see CBC Radio interview of Lindsay Duncombe) it is treated as the stuff of futuristic science fiction. As you can see from this piece and a cornucopia of articles elsewhere in print and online, that belief is deeply erroneous.

Hopefully, I’m wrong and the Canadian federal government is alive to the many possibilities good and ill afforded by these ‘science fiction’ technologies and is examining ways to ensure safe implementation.

Tech companies want your brain (data)

Leave a reply

h/t to Lifeboat’s April 7, 2026 blog posting “Your brain for sale? The new frontier of neural data” pointing to this April 7, 2026 essay by Alberto Rinaldi (Senior Lecturer in Law and AI, Department of Law, Lund University) and Johan Mårtensson (Senior Lecturer and Associate Professor in Logopedics, Phoniatrics and Audiology, Lund University) on The Conversation,

Your browsing history, your location, your political preferences. For years, tech companies have found ways to turn personal data into profit. Now, a new and far more intimate frontier is opening: the electrical signals produced by your brain.

This is not science fiction. Nor is it about brain implants for paralysed patients or experimental medical procedures. A fast-growing consumer market of non-invasive neurotechnology – wearable headsets, brain activity-reading headbands, focus-enhancing devices – is already here, already being sold and already collecting neural data from ordinary users. But the legal and ethical frameworks to govern it are struggling to keep up.

A landmark case from Chile shows why this matters.

In August 2023, Chile’s Supreme Court issued the world’s first ruling on commercial neurodata. The case involved Senator Guido Girardi and Emotiv Inc, a San Francisco company selling the Insight wireless headset – a consumer device marketed for focus, meditation and cognitive performance.

When Girardi began using it, he discovered that accepting the terms of service meant granting Emotiv a worldwide, irrevocable and perpetual licence over his brain data. Unless he paid for a premium account, that data would be stored in Emotiv’s cloud with no way for him to access or export his own neural records.

The Chilean Supreme Court ruled that Emotiv had violated Girardi’s constitutional right to mental integrity, concluding: “The data obtained from Insight users … overlooks the preliminary requirement to have express consent for its use for scientific research purposes. Information collected for various purposes cannot be used differently without its owner’s knowledge and approval.”

The Supreme Court ordered the company to delete Girardi’s data immediately and prohibited sale of the Insight device in Chile until its privacy policies were revised. The headsets remain on sale in other countries around the world.

…

A market growing faster than its rules

Emotiv is far from alone. Companies such as Muse (marketed for meditation and sleep) and Neurosity (aimed at software developers seeking focus) [emphases mine] have built a consumer neurotechnology sector that is projected to double in value to more than US$55 billion (£42 billion) within a decade. It is attracting investment from some of the world’s wealthiest technology figures.

…

The Emotiv case showed that, in one instance at least, a company had retained a user’s neural data for research purposes under anonymisation provisions, without that user having any meaningful awareness of what was being collected or why.

The stakes here are higher than with most forms of personal data. Neural signals are not like a credit card number that can be changed if compromised. Generated by your brain in real time, they can increasingly be used to infer things about you that you have not chosen to disclose – such as emotional responses, cognitive patterns, and other reactions you may not consciously be aware of.

Chile has showed that courts can act. Legislators in several jurisdictions are beginning to follow. The harder question is whether the frameworks being built are moving fast enough to match a market that, in the quest for competitive advantage, does not want to hang about waiting for them.

My April 2, 2026 posting “Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and music composition” highlighted a creative approach to using brain data and my April 22, 2026 posting “Dancer with a motor neuron(e) disease (MND) guides her digital avatar through a stage performance” feature positive aspect of working with brain data..While my October 21, 2025 posting “Copyright, artificial intelligence, and thoughts about cyborgs” provides a deeper dive into some of the thorny issues around intellectual property rights and the new technologies, including brain implants..

For anyone curious about Emotiv, there’s this seductive video,

You can find out more about MUSE (a Canadian company) here and about Neurosity here.

There are a couple of previous postings that feature MUSE,

That’s it.

New security protocol to protect miniaturized wireless medical implants from cyberthreats

Leave a reply

A March 20, 2025 news item on ScienceDaily makes an announcement regarding cyberthreats and medical devices,

A brain implant designed to help control seizures is hijacked. A pacemaker receives fake signals, disrupting its rhythm. A hacker infiltrates an insulin pump, delivering a fatal overdose. While these scenarios sound like scenes from a sci-fi thriller, such cyberhealth threats are of real concern as medical technology moves toward smart, wirelessly connected implants.

…

A March 20, 2025 Rice University news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news release, describes the work in greater detail, Note: Links have been removed,

Smart bioelectronic implants promise to revolutionize healthcare, giving doctors remote access to monitor and adjust treatments. But as these devices become more advanced, they also become more vulnerable. Just like smartphones and bank accounts, medical implants could be targeted by cybercriminals. And when that happens, the consequences could be life-threatening.

At Rice University, electrical and computer engineer Kaiyuan Yang is working to stay ahead of these threats, developing hacker-resistant implants that protect patients from the dark side of medical innovation.

“As biomedical technology advances, the stakes of security are becoming ever more critical,” said Rice University engineer Kaiyuan Yang, who runs the Secure and Intelligent Micro-Systems (SIMS) Lab. “Imagine a tiny, battery-free medical implant ⎯ no bigger than a grain of rice ⎯ capable of treating diseases without major surgery or medication regimens.

“Such implants, powered wirelessly and connected to the internet through a wearable hub, could make a huge difference for the autonomy and life quality of people living with chronic conditions like epilepsy or treatment-resistant depression, for instance,” said Yang, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at Rice.

Advanced wireless implantable technology could enable doctors to monitor patients’ health and adjust treatment remotely, making the need for on-site testing and treatment obsolete. But Yang warns that with this potential comes a serious risk: Hackers could intercept communications, steal passwords or send fake commands, threatening patient safety.

In recent work presented at the International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) ⎯ the flagship conference of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) ⎯ Yang and his team unveiled a first-of-its-kind authentication protocol for wireless, battery-free, ultraminiaturized implants that ensures these devices remain protected while still allowing emergency access. Known as magnetoelectric datagram transport layer security, or ME-DTLS, the protocol exploits a quirk of wireless power transfer, a technology that allows medical implants to be powered externally without a battery. Normally when the external power source ⎯ or in this case the external hub worn by the patient ⎯ moves slightly out of alignment, the amount of power the implant receives fluctuates.

“Lateral or side-to-side movement causes a signal misalignment that is usually considered a flaw in these systems, but we turned it into a security feature by transmitting binary values to specific movements with full awareness of the patient,” Yang said.

For example, by coding short movements as a “1” and longer movements as a “0,” the protocol enables users to input a secure access pattern just by moving the external hub in a specific way. This pattern-based input acts like a second authentication factor, much like entering a PIN after using a password or drawing a pattern to unlock a phone. The overall user experience with the ME-DTLS two-factor authentication closely resembles the process of logging into bank accounts today. Users enter their login credentials, wait for an SMS with a temporary passcode then input this passcode to log in.

This innovation solves two major problems in medical cybersecurity. First, it protects against stolen passwords by requiring a physical confirmation step that cannot be faked remotely. Second, it ensures emergency responders can access the device without needing preshared credentials. Thus, if a patient is unconscious or unable to provide a password, the implant transmits a temporary authentication signal that can only be detected at close range.

“This ensures that only a nearby authorized device can access the implant,” Yang said. “In emergencies, the implant verifies the responder or doctor by the pattern they draw and gives them access even if there is no internet connection.”

By leveraging an intrinsic feature of wireless power transfer systems, the solution developed by Yang and his team avoids the drawbacks of other security measures for implantable technologies, like the addition of bulky sensors.

The researchers tested the pattern input method with volunteers and found that it correctly recognized the patterns 98.72% of the time, proving their solution is both reliable and easy to use. The team also developed a rapid, low-power method for the implant to send data back out securely and effectively.

“To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to utilize the natural flaw of wireless power transfer to send secure information to the implant and enable secure two-factor authentication in miniaturized implants,” Yang said. “Compared to other medical devices, our design offers the best balance between security, efficiency and reliability.”

For patients, this could mean a future where their medical implants are both secure and accessible when it matters most, offering a simple, intuitive way to ensure that only the right people ⎯ whether a doctor, caregiver or emergency responder ⎯ can control the technology inside their bodies.

Yang and his team presented their work at the ISSCC held Feb.16-20 in San Francisco. At the conference, Yang was awarded the IEEE Solid-State Circuits Society New Frontier Award, which recognizes early career researchers “exploring innovative and visionary technical work,” according to the IEEE website. This year, Yang’s team was part of a larger contingent of Rice faculty and students who presented at the conference and were recognized for their achievements.

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation (2146476).

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

35.4: A Miniature Biomedical Implant Secured by Two-Factor Authentication with Emergency Access by Wei Wang; Yumin Su; Huan-Cheng Liao; Yiwei Zou; Tian Qiu; Kaiyuan Yang. 2025 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC), San Francisco, CA, USA, 2025, pp. 574-576 DOI: 10.1109/ISSCC49661.2025.10904583

This paper is behind a paywall.

Brain-machine interface on a chip

Leave a reply
Caption: An entire brain-machine interface on a chip: Converting brain activity to text on one extremely small integrated system. Credit: © 2024 EPFL / Lundi13 – CC-BY-SA 4.0

News about an entire brain-machine interface (BMI) on a chip comes from an August 26, 2024 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) press release (also on EurekAlert), Note: Links have been removed,

Brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) have emerged as a promising solution for restoring communication and control to individuals with severe motor impairments. Traditionally, these systems have been bulky, power-intensive, and limited in their practical applications. Researchers at EPFL have developed the first high-performance, Miniaturized Brain-Machine Interface (MiBMI), offering an extremely small, low-power, highly accurate, and versatile solution. Published in the latest issue of the IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits and presented at the International Solid-State Circuits Conference, the MiBMI not only enhances the efficiency and scalability of brain-machine interfaces but also paves the way for practical, fully implantable devices. This technology holds the potential to significantly improve the quality of life for patients with conditions such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and spinal cord injuries.

The MiBMI’s small size and low power are key features, making the system suitable for implantable applications. Its minimal invasiveness ensures safety and practicality for use in clinical and real-life settings. It is also a fully integrated system, meaning that the recording and processing are done on two extremely small chips with a total area of 8mm2. Thisis the latest in a new class of low-power BMI devices developed at Mahsa Shoaran’s Integrated Neurotechnologies Laboratory (INL) at EPFL’s IEM and Neuro X institutes. 

“MiBMI allows us to convert intricate neural activity into readable text with high accuracy and low power consumption.This advancement brings us closer to practical, implantable solutions that can significantly enhance communication abilities for individuals with severe motor impairments,” says Shoaran.  

Brain-to-text conversion involves decoding neural signals generated when a person imagines writing letters or words. In this process, electrodes implanted in the brain record neural activity associated with the motor actions of handwriting. The MiBMI chipset then processes these signals in real-time, translating the brain’s intended hand movements into corresponding digital text. This technology allows individuals, especially those with locked-in syndrome and other severe motor impairments, to communicate by simply thinking about writing, with the interface converting their thoughts into readable text on a screen.

“While the chip has not yet been integrated into a working BMI, it has processed data from previous live recordings, such as those from the Shenoy lab at Stanford [Stanford University in California, US}, converting handwriting activity into text with an impressive 91% accuracy,” says lead author Mohammed Ali Shaeri. The chip can currently decode up to 31 different characters, an achievement unmatched by any other integrated systems. “We are confident that we can decode up to 100 characters, but a handwriting dataset with more characters is not yet available,” adds Shaeri. 

Current BMIs record the data from electrodes implanted in the brain and then send these signals to a separate computer to do the decoding. The MiBMI chips records the data but also processes the information in real time—integrating a 192-channel neural recording system with a 512-channel neural decoder. This neurotechnological breakthrough is a feat of extreme miniaturization that combines expertise in integrated circuits, neural engineering, and artificial intelligence. This innovation is particularly exciting in the emerging era of neurotech startups in the BMI domain, where integration and miniaturization are key focuses. EPFL’s MiBMI offers promising insights and potential for the future of the field.

To be able to process the massive amount of information picked up by the electrodes on the miniaturized BMI, the researchers had to take a completely different approach to data analysis. They discovered that the brain activity for each letter, when the patient imagines writing it by hand, contains very specific markers, which the researchers have named distinctive neural codes (DNCs). Instead of processing thousands of bytes of data for each letter, the microchip only needs to process the DNCs, which are around a hundred bytes. This makes the system fast, accurate, and with low-power consumption.  This breakthrough also allows for faster training times, making learning how to use the BMI easier and more accessible. 

Collaborations with other teams at EPFL’s Neuro-X and IEM Institutes, such as with the laboratories of Grégoire Courtine, Silvestro Micera, Stéphanie Lacour, and David Atienza promise to create the next generation of integrated BMI systems. Shoaran, Shaeri and their team are exploring various applications for the MiBMI system beyond handwriting recognition. “We are collaborating with other research groups to test the system in different contexts, such as speech decoding and movement control. Our goal is to develop a versatile BMI that can be tailored to various neurological disorders, providing a broader range of solutions for patients,” says Shoaran.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

A 2.46-mm2 Miniaturized Brain-Machine Interface (MiBMI) Enabling 31-Class Brain-to-Text Decoding by MohammadAli Shaeri, Uisub Shin, Amitabh Yadav, Riccardo Caramellino, Gregor Rainer, Mahsa Shoaran. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits Volume: 59 Issue: 11 pp. 3566-3579, Nov. 2024, DOI : 10.1109/JSSC.2024.3443254

This paper is behind a paywall.

Neural (brain) implants and hype (long read)

Leave a reply

There was a big splash a few weeks ago when it was announced that Neuralink’s (Elon Musk company) brain implant had been surgically inserted into its first human patient.

Getting approval

David Tuffley, senior lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity at Griffith University (Australia), provides a good overview of the road Neuralink took to getting FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) approval for human clinical trials in his May 29, 2023 essay for The Conversation, Note: Links have been removed,

Since its founding in 2016, Elon Musk’s neurotechnology company Neuralink has had the ambitious mission to build a next-generation brain implant with at least 100 times more brain connections than devices currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The company has now reached a significant milestone, having received FDA approval to begin human trials. So what were the issues keeping the technology in the pre-clinical trial phase for as long as it was? And have these concerns been addressed?

…

Neuralink is making a Class III medical device known as a brain-computer interface (BCI). The device connects the brain to an external computer via a Bluetooth signal, enabling continuous communication back and forth.

The device itself is a coin-sized unit called a Link. It’s implanted within a small disk-shaped cutout in the skull using a precision surgical robot. The robot splices a thousand tiny threads from the Link to certain neurons in the brain. [emphasis mine] Each thread is about a quarter the diameter of a human hair.

…

The company says the device could enable precise control of prosthetic limbs, giving amputees natural motor skills. It could revolutionise treatment for conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy and spinal cord injuries. It also shows some promise for potential treatment of obesity, autism, depression, schizophrenia and tinnitus.

Several other neurotechnology companies and researchers have already developed BCI technologies that have helped people with limited mobility regain movement and complete daily tasks.

…

In February 2021, Musk said Neuralink was working with the FDA to secure permission to start initial human trials later that year. But human trials didn’t commence in 2021.

Then, in March 2022, Neuralink made a further application to the FDA to establish its readiness to begin humans trials.

One year and three months later, on May 25 2023, Neuralink finally received FDA approval for its first human clinical trial. Given how hard Neuralink has pushed for permission to begin, we can assume it will begin very soon. [emphasis mine]

The approval has come less than six months after the US Office of the Inspector General launched an investigation into Neuralink over potential animal welfare violations. [emphasis mine]

…

In accessible language, Tuffley goes on to discuss the FDA’s specific technical issues with implants and how they were addressed in his May 29, 2023 essay.

More about how Neuralink’s implant works and some concerns

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) journalist Andrew Chang offers an almost 13 minute video, “Neuralink brain chip’s first human patient. How does it work?” Chang is a little overenthused for my taste but he offers some good information about neural implants, along with informative graphics in his presentation.

So, Tuffley was right about Neuralink getting ready quickly for human clinical trials as you can guess from the title of Chang’s CBC video.

Jennifer Korn announced that recruitment had started in her September 20, 2023 article for CNN (Cable News Network), Note: Links have been removed,

Elon Musk’s controversial biotechnology startup Neuralink opened up recruitment for its first human clinical trial Tuesday, according to a company blog.

After receiving approval from an independent review board, Neuralink is set to begin offering brain implants to paralysis patients as part of the PRIME Study, the company said. PRIME, short for Precise Robotically Implanted Brain-Computer Interface, is being carried out to evaluate both the safety and functionality of the implant.

Trial patients will have a chip surgically placed in the part of the brain that controls the intention to move. The chip, installed by a robot, will then record and send brain signals to an app, with the initial goal being “to grant people the ability to control a computer cursor or keyboard using their thoughts alone,” the company wrote.

Those with quadriplegia [sometimes known as tetraplegia] due to cervical spinal cord injury or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may qualify for the six-year-long study – 18 months of at-home and clinic visits followed by follow-up visits over five years. Interested people can sign up in the patient registry on Neuralink’s website.

Musk has been working on Neuralink’s goal of using implants to connect the human brain to a computer for five years, but the company so far has only tested on animals. The company also faced scrutiny after a monkey died in project testing in 2022 as part of efforts to get the animal to play Pong, one of the first video games.

…

I mentioned three Reuters investigative journalists who were reporting on Neuralink’s animal abuse allegations (emphasized in Tuffley’s essay) in a July 7, 2023 posting, “Global dialogue on the ethics of neurotechnology on July 13, 2023 led by UNESCO.” Later that year, Neuralink was cleared by the US Department of Agriculture (see September 24,, 2023 article by Mahnoor Jehangir for BNN Breaking).

Plus, Neuralink was being investigated over more allegations according to a February 9, 2023 article by Rachel Levy for Reuters, this time regarding hazardous pathogens,

The U.S. Department of Transportation said on Thursday it is investigating Elon Musk’s brain-implant company Neuralink over the potentially illegal movement of hazardous pathogens.

A Department of Transportation spokesperson told Reuters about the probe after the Physicians Committee of Responsible Medicine (PCRM), an animal-welfare advocacy group,wrote to Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, opens new tab earlier on Thursday to alert it of records it obtained on the matter.

PCRM said it obtained emails and other documents that suggest unsafe packaging and movement of implants removed from the brains of monkeys. These implants may have carried infectious diseases in violation of federal law, PCRM said.

…

There’s an update about the hazardous materials in the next section. Spoiler alert, the company got fined.

Neuralink’s first human implant

A January 30, 2024 article (Associated Press with files from Reuters) on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) online news webspace heralded the latest about Neurlink’s human clinical trials,

The first human patient received an implant from Elon Musk’s computer-brain interface company Neuralink over the weekend, the billionaire says.

In a post Monday [January 29, 2024] on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Musk said that the patient received the implant the day prior and was “recovering well.” He added that “initial results show promising neuron spike detection.”

Spikes are activity by neurons, which the National Institutes of Health describe as cells that use electrical and chemical signals to send information around the brain and to the body.

The billionaire, who owns X and co-founded Neuralink, did not provide additional details about the patient.

…

When Neuralink announced in September [2023] that it would begin recruiting people, the company said it was searching for individuals with quadriplegia due to cervical spinal cord injury or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, commonly known as ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease.

…

Neuralink reposted Musk’s Monday [January 29, 2024] post on X, but did not publish any additional statements acknowledging the human implant. The company did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Associated Press or Reuters on Tuesday [January 30, 2024].

…

In a separate Monday [January 29, 2024] post on X, Musk said that the first Neuralink product is called “Telepathy” — which, he said, will enable users to control their phones or computers “just by thinking.” He said initial users would be those who have lost use of their limbs.

The startup’s PRIME Study is a trial for its wireless brain-computer interface to evaluate the safety of the implant and surgical robot.

…

Now for the hazardous materials, January 30, 2024 article, Note: A link has been removed,

…

Earlier this month [January 2024], a Reuters investigation found that Neuralink was fined for violating U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) rules regarding the movement of hazardous materials. During inspections of the company’s facilities in Texas and California in February 2023, DOT investigators found the company had failed to register itself as a transporter of hazardous material.

They also found improper packaging of hazardous waste, including the flammable liquid Xylene. Xylene can cause headaches, dizziness, confusion, loss of muscle co-ordination and even death, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

…

The records do not say why Neuralink would need to transport hazardous materials or whether any harm resulted from the violations.

Skeptical thoughts about Elon Musk and Neuralink

Earlier this month (February 2024), the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) published an article by health reporters, Jim Reed and Joe McFadden, that highlights the history of brain implants, the possibilities, and notes some of Elon Musk’s more outrageous claims for Neuralink’s brain implants,

Elon Musk is no stranger to bold claims – from his plans to colonise Mars to his dreams of building transport links underneath our biggest cities. This week the world’s richest man said his Neuralink division had successfully implanted its first wireless brain chip into a human.

Is he right when he says this technology could – in the long term – save the human race itself?

Sticking electrodes into brain tissue is really nothing new.

In the 1960s and 70s electrical stimulation was used to trigger or suppress aggressive behaviour in cats. By the early 2000s monkeys were being trained to move a cursor around a computer screen using just their thoughts.

“It’s nothing novel, but implantable technology takes a long time to mature, and reach a stage where companies have all the pieces of the puzzle, and can really start to put them together,” says Anne Vanhoestenberghe, professor of active implantable medical devices, at King’s College London.

Neuralink is one of a growing number of companies and university departments attempting to refine and ultimately commercialise this technology. The focus, at least to start with, is on paralysis and the treatment of complex neurological conditions.

…

Reed and McFadden’s February 2024 BBC article describes a few of the other brain implant efforts, Note: Links have been removed,

One of its [Neuralink’s] main rivals, a start-up called Synchron backed by funding from investment firms controlled by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, has already implanted its stent-like device into 10 patients.

Back in December 2021, Philip O’Keefe, a 62-year old Australian who lives with a form of motor neurone disease, composed the first tweet using just his thoughts to control a cursor.

And researchers at Lausanne University in Switzerland have shown it is possible for a paralysed man to walk again by implanting multiple devices to bypass damage caused by a cycling accident.

In a research paper published this year, they demonstrated a signal could be beamed down from a device in his brain to a second device implanted at the base of his spine, which could then trigger his limbs to move.

Some people living with spinal injuries are sceptical about the sudden interest in this new kind of technology.

“These breakthroughs get announced time and time again and don’t seem to be getting any further along,” says Glyn Hayes, who was paralysed in a motorbike accident in 2017, and now runs public affairs for the Spinal Injuries Association.

“If I could have anything back, it wouldn’t be the ability to walk. It would be putting more money into a way of removing nerve pain, for example, or ways to improve bowel, bladder and sexual function.” [emphasis mine]

…

Musk, however, is focused on something far more grand for Neuralink implants, from Reed and McFadden’s February 2024 BBC article, Note: A link has been removed,

But for Elon Musk, “solving” brain and spinal injuries is just the first step for Neuralink.

The longer-term goal is “human/AI symbiosis” [emphasis mine], something he describes as “species-level important”.

…

Musk himself has already talked about a future where his device could allow people to communicate with a phone or computer “faster than a speed typist or auctioneer”.

In the past, he has even said saving and replaying memories may be possible, although he recognised “this is sounding increasingly like a Black Mirror episode.”

One of the experts quoted in Reed and McFadden’s February 2024 BBC article asks a pointed question,

… “At the moment, I’m struggling to see an application that a consumer would benefit from, where they would take the risk of invasive surgery,” says Prof Vanhoestenberghe.

“You’ve got to ask yourself, would you risk brain surgery just to be able to order a pizza on your phone?”

…

Rae Hodge’s February 11, 2024 article about Elon Musk and his hyped up Neuralink implant for Salon is worth reading in its entirety but for those who don’t have the time or need a little persuading, here are a few excerpts, Note 1: This is a warning; Hodge provides more detail about the animal cruelty allegations; Note 2: Links have been removed,

Elon Musk’s controversial brain-computer interface (BCI) tech, Neuralink, has supposedly been implanted in its first recipient — and as much as I want to see progress for treatment of paralysis and neurodegenerative disease, I’m not celebrating. I bet the neuroscientists he reportedly drove out of the company aren’t either, especially not after seeing the gruesome torture of test monkeys and apparent cover-up that paved the way for this moment. 

All of which is an ethics horror show on its own. But the timing of Musk’s overhyped implant announcement gives it an additional insulting subtext. Football players are currently in a battle for their lives against concussion-based brain diseases that plague autopsy reports of former NFL players. And Musk’s boast of false hope came just two weeks before living players take the field in the biggest and most brutal game of the year. [2024 Super Bowl LVIII]

ESPN’s Kevin Seifert reports neuro-damage is up this year as “players suffered a total of 52 concussions from the start of training camp to the beginning of the regular season. The combined total of 213 preseason and regular season concussions was 14% higher than 2021 but within range of the three-year average from 2018 to 2020 (203).”

…

I’m a big fan of body-tech: pacemakers, 3D-printed hips and prosthetic limbs that allow you to wear your wedding ring again after 17 years. Same for brain chips. But BCI is the slow-moving front of body-tech development for good reason. The brain is too understudied. Consequences of the wrong move are dire. Overpromising marketable results on profit-driven timelines — on the backs of such a small community of researchers in a relatively new field — would be either idiotic or fiendish. 

Brown University’s research in the sector goes back to the 1990s. Since the emergence of a floodgate-opening 2002 study and the first implant in 2004 by med-tech company BrainGate, more promising results have inspired broader investment into careful research. But BrainGate’s clinical trials started back in 2009, and as noted by Business Insider’s Hilary Brueck, are expected to continue until 2038 — with only 15 participants who have devices installed. 

Anne Vanhoestenberghe is a professor of active implantable medical devices at King’s College London. In a recent release, she cautioned against the kind of hype peddled by Musk.

“Whilst there are a few other companies already using their devices in humans and the neuroscience community have made remarkable achievements with those devices, the potential benefits are still significantly limited by technology,” she said. “Developing and validating core technology for long term use in humans takes time and we need more investments to ensure we do the work that will underpin the next generation of BCIs.” 

…

Neuralink is a metal coin in your head that connects to something as flimsy as an app. And we’ve seen how Elon treats those. We’ve also seen corporate goons steal a veteran’s prosthetic legs — and companies turn brain surgeons and dentists into repo-men by having them yank anti-epilepsy chips out of people’s skulls, and dentures out of their mouths. 

“I think we have a chance with Neuralink to restore full-body functionality to someone who has a spinal cord injury,” Musk said at a 2023 tech summit, adding that the chip could possibly “make up for whatever lost capacity somebody has.”

Maybe BCI can. But only in the careful hands of scientists who don’t have Musk squawking “go faster!” over their shoulders. His greedy frustration with the speed of BCI science is telling, as is the animal cruelty it reportedly prompted.

…

There have been other examples of Musk’s grandiosity. Notably, David Lee expressed skepticism about hyperloop in his August 13, 2013 article for BBC news online

Is Elon Musk’s Hyperloop just a pipe dream?

Much like the pun in the headline, the bright idea of transporting people using some kind of vacuum-like tube is neither new nor imaginative.

There was Robert Goddard, considered the “father of modern rocket propulsion”, who claimed in 1909 that his vacuum system could suck passengers from Boston to New York at 1,200mph.

And then there were Soviet plans for an amphibious monorail  – mooted in 1934  – in which two long pods would start their journey attached to a metal track before flying off the end and slipping into the water like a two-fingered Kit Kat dropped into some tea.

So ever since inventor and entrepreneur Elon Musk hit the world’s media with his plans for the Hyperloop, a healthy dose of scepticism has been in the air.

“This is by no means a new idea,” says Rod Muttram, formerly of Bombardier Transportation and Railtrack.

“It has been previously suggested as a possible transatlantic transport system. The only novel feature I see is the proposal to put the tubes above existing roads.”

…

Here’s the latest I’ve found on hyperloop, from the Hyperloop Wikipedia entry,

…

As of 2024, some companies continued to pursue technology development under the hyperloop moniker, however, one of the biggest, well funded players, Hyperloop One, declared bankruptcy and ceased operations in 2023.[15]

…

Musk is impatient and impulsive as noted in a September 12, 2023 posting by Mike Masnick on Techdirt, Note: A link has been removed,

The Batshit Crazy Story Of The Day Elon Musk Decided To Personally Rip Servers Out Of A Sacramento Data Center

Back on Christmas Eve [December 24, 2022] of last year there were some reports that Elon Musk was in the process of shutting down Twitter’s Sacramento data center. In that article, a number of ex-Twitter employees were quoted about how much work it would be to do that cleanly, noting that there’s a ton of stuff hardcoded in Twitter code referring to that data center (hold that thought).

That same day, Elon tweeted out that he had “disconnected one of the more sensitive server racks.”

…

Masnick follows with a story of reckless behaviour from someone who should have known better.

Ethics of implants—where to look for more information

While Musk doesn’t use the term when he describes a “human/AI symbiosis” (presumably by way of a neural implant), he’s talking about a cyborg. Here’s a 2018 paper, which looks at some of the implications,

Do you want to be a cyborg? The moderating effect of ethics on neural implant acceptance by Eva Reinares-Lara, Cristina Olarte-Pascual, and Jorge Pelegrín-Borondo. Computers in Human Behavior Volume 85, August 2018, Pages 43-53 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.032

This paper is open access.

Getting back to Neuralink, I have two blog posts that discuss the company and the ethics of brain implants from way back in 2021.

First, there’s Jazzy Benes’ March 1, 2021 posting on the Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics blog. It stands out as it includes a discussion of the disabled community’s issues, Note: Links have been removed,

In the heart of Silicon Valley we are constantly enticed by the newest technological advances. With the big influencers Grimes [a Canadian musician and the mother of three children with Elon Musk] and Lil Uzi Vert publicly announcing their willingness to become experimental subjects for Elon Musk’s Neuralink brain implantation device, we are left wondering if future technology will actually give us “the knowledge of the Gods.” Is it part of the natural order for humans to become omniscient beings? Who will have access to the devices? What other ethical considerations must be discussed before releasing such technology to the public?

…

A significant issue that arises from developing technologies for the disabled community is the assumption that disabled persons desire the abilities of what some abled individuals may define as “normal.” Individuals with disabilities may object to technologies intended to make them fit an able-bodied norm. “Normal” is relative to each individual, and it could be potentially harmful to use a deficit view of disability, which means judging a disability as a deficiency. However, this is not to say that all disabled individuals will reject a technology that may enhance their abilities. Instead, I believe it is a consideration that must be recognized when developing technologies for the disabled community, and it can only be addressed through communication with disabled persons. As a result, I believe this is a conversation that must be had with the community for whom the technology is developed–disabled persons.

…

With technologies that aim to address disabilities, we walk a fine line between therapeutics and enhancement. Though not the first neural implant medical device, the Link may have been the first BCI system openly discussed for its potential transhumanism uses, such as “enhanced cognitive abilities, memory storage and retrieval, gaming, telepathy, and even symbiosis with machines.” …

Benes also discusses transhumanism, privacy issues, and consent issues. It’s a thoughtful reading experience.

Second is a July 9, 2021 posting by anonymous on the University of California at Berkeley School of Information blog which provides more insight into privacy and other issues associated with data collection (and introduced me to the concept of decisional interference),

As the development of microchips furthers and advances in neuroscience occur, the possibility for seamless brain-machine interfaces, where a device decodes inputs from the user’s brain to perform functions, becomes more of a reality. These various forms of these technologies already exist. However, technological advances have made implantable and portable devices possible. Imagine a future where humans don’t need to talk to each other, but rather can transmit their thoughts directly to another person. This idea is the eventual goal of Elon Musk, the founder of Neuralink. Currently, Neuralink is one of the main companies involved in the advancement of this type of technology. Analysis of the Neuralink’s technology and their overall mission statement provide an interesting insight into the future of this type of human-computer interface and the potential privacy and ethical concerns with this technology.

…

As this technology further develops, several privacy and ethical concerns come into question. To begin, using Solove’s Taxonomy as a privacy framework, many areas of potential harm are revealed. In the realm of information collection, there is much risk. Brain-computer interfaces, depending on where they are implanted, could have access to people’s most private thoughts and emotions. This information would need to be transmitted to another device for processing. The collection of this information by companies such as advertisers would represent a major breach of privacy. Additionally, there is risk to the user from information processing. These devices must work concurrently with other devices and often wirelessly. Given the widespread importance of cloud computing in much of today’s technology, offloading information from these devices to the cloud would be likely. Having the data stored in a database puts the user at the risk of secondary use if proper privacy policies are not implemented. The trove of information stored within the information collected from the brain is vast. These datasets could be combined with existing databases such as browsing history on Google to provide third parties with unimaginable context on individuals. Lastly, there is risk for information dissemination, more specifically, exposure. The information collected and processed by these devices would need to be stored digitally. Keeping such private information, even if anonymized, would be a huge potential for harm, as the contents of the information may in itself be re-identifiable to a specific individual. Lastly there is risk for invasions such as decisional interference. Brain-machine interfaces would not only be able to read information in the brain but also write information. This would allow the device to make potential emotional changes in its users, which be a major example of decisional interference. …

For the most recent Neuralink and brain implant ethics piece, there’s this February 14, 2024 essay on The Conversation, which, unusually, for this publication was solicited by the editors, Note: Links have been removed,

In January 2024, Musk announced that Neuralink implanted its first chip in a human subject’s brain. The Conversation reached out to two scholars at the University of Washington School of Medicine – Nancy Jecker, a bioethicst, and Andrew Ko, a neurosurgeon who implants brain chip devices – for their thoughts on the ethics of this new horizon in neuroscience.

…

Information about the implant, however, is scarce, aside from a brochure aimed at recruiting trial subjects. Neuralink did not register at ClinicalTrials.gov, as is customary, and required by some academic journals. [all emphases mine]

Some scientists are troubled by this lack of transparency. Sharing information about clinical trials is important because it helps other investigators learn about areas related to their research and can improve patient care. Academic journals can also be biased toward positive results, preventing researchers from learning from unsuccessful experiments.

Fellows at the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank, have warned that Musk’s brand of “science by press release, while increasingly common, is not science. [emphases mine]” They advise against relying on someone with a huge financial stake in a research outcome to function as the sole source of information.

When scientific research is funded by government agencies or philanthropic groups, its aim is to promote the public good. Neuralink, on the other hand, embodies a private equity model [emphasis mine], which is becoming more common in science. Firms pooling funds from private investors to back science breakthroughs may strive to do good, but they also strive to maximize profits, which can conflict with patients’ best interests.

In 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture investigated animal cruelty at Neuralink, according to a Reuters report, after employees accused the company of rushing tests and botching procedures on test animals in a race for results. The agency’s inspection found no breaches, according to a letter from the USDA secretary to lawmakers, which Reuters reviewed. However, the secretary did note an “adverse surgical event” in 2019 that Neuralink had self-reported.

In a separate incident also reported by Reuters, the Department of Transportation fined Neuralink for violating rules about transporting hazardous materials, including a flammable liquid.

…

…the possibility that the device could be increasingly shown to be helpful for people with disabilities, but become unavailable due to loss of research funding. For patients whose access to a device is tied to a research study, the prospect of losing access after the study ends can be devastating. [emphasis mine] This raises thorny questions about whether it is ever ethical to provide early access to breakthrough medical interventions prior to their receiving full FDA approval.

Not registering a clinical trial would seem to suggest there won’t be much oversight. As for Musk’s “science by press release” activities, I hope those will be treated with more skepticism by mainstream media although that seems unlikely given the current situation with journalism (more about that in a future post).

As for the issues associated with private equity models for science research and the problem of losing access to devices after a clinical trial is ended, my April 5, 2022 posting, “Going blind when your neural implant company flirts with bankruptcy (long read)” offers some cautionary tales, in addition to being the most comprehensive piece I’ve published on ethics and brain implants.

My July 17, 2023 posting, “Unveiling the Neurotechnology Landscape: Scientific Advancements, Innovations and Major Trends—a UNESCO report” offers a brief overview of the international scene.

Communicating thoughts by means of brain implants?

Leave a reply

The Australian military announced mind-controlled robots in Spring 2023 (see my June 13, 2023 posting) and, recently, scientists at Duke University (North Carolina, US) have announced research that may allow people who are unable to speak to communicate their thoughts, from a November 6, 2023 news item on ScienceDaily,

A speech prosthetic developed by a collaborative team of Duke neuroscientists, neurosurgeons, and engineers can translate a person’s brain signals into what they’re trying to say.

Appearing Nov. 6 [2023] in the journal Nature Communications, the new technology might one day help people unable to talk due to neurological disorders regain the ability to communicate through a brain-computer interface.

…

One more plastic brain for this blog,

Caption: A device no bigger than a postage stamp (dotted portion within white band) packs 128 microscopic sensors that can translate brain cell activity into what someone intends to say. Credit: Dan Vahaba/Duke University

A November 6, 2023 Duke University news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, provides more detail, Note: Links have been removed,

“There are many patients who suffer from debilitating motor disorders, like ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) or locked-in syndrome, that can impair their ability to speak,” said Gregory Cogan, Ph.D., a professor of neurology at Duke University’s School of Medicine and one of the lead researchers involved in the project. “But the current tools available to allow them to communicate are generally very slow and cumbersome.”

Imagine listening to an audiobook at half-speed. That’s the best speech decoding rate currently available, which clocks in at about 78 words per minute. People, however, speak around 150 words per minute.

The lag between spoken and decoded speech rates is partially due the relatively few brain activity sensors that can be fused onto a paper-thin piece of material that lays atop the surface of the brain. Fewer sensors provide less decipherable information to decode.

To improve on past limitations, Cogan teamed up with fellow Duke Institute for Brain Sciences faculty member Jonathan Viventi, Ph.D., whose biomedical engineering lab specializes in making high-density, ultra-thin, and flexible brain sensors.

For this project, Viventi and his team packed an impressive 256 microscopic brain sensors onto a postage stamp-sized piece of flexible, medical-grade plastic. Neurons just a grain of sand apart can have wildly different activity patterns when coordinating speech, so it’s necessary to distinguish signals from neighboring brain cells to help make accurate predictions about intended speech.

After fabricating the new implant, Cogan and Viventi teamed up with several Duke University Hospital neurosurgeons, including Derek Southwell, M.D., Ph.D., Nandan Lad, M.D., Ph.D., and Allan Friedman, M.D., who helped recruit four patients to test the implants. The experiment required the researchers to place the device temporarily in patients who were undergoing brain surgery for some other condition, such as  treating Parkinson’s disease or having a tumor removed. Time was limited for Cogan and his team to test drive their device in the OR.

“I like to compare it to a NASCAR pit crew,” Cogan said. “We don’t want to add any extra time to the operating procedure, so we had to be in and out within 15 minutes. As soon as the surgeon and the medical team said ‘Go!’ we rushed into action and the patient performed the task.”

The task was a simple listen-and-repeat activity. Participants heard a series of nonsense words, like “ava,” “kug,” or “vip,” and then spoke each one aloud. The device recorded activity from each patient’s speech motor cortex as it coordinated nearly 100 muscles that move the lips, tongue, jaw, and larynx.

Afterwards, Suseendrakumar Duraivel, the first author of the new report and a biomedical engineering graduate student at Duke, took the neural and speech data from the surgery suite and fed it into a machine learning algorithm to see how accurately it could predict what sound was being made, based only on the brain activity recordings.

For some sounds and participants, like /g/ in the word “gak,”  the decoder got it right 84% of the time when it was the first sound in a string of three that made up a given nonsense word.

Accuracy dropped, though, as the decoder parsed out sounds in the middle or at the end of a nonsense word. It also struggled if two sounds were similar, like /p/ and /b/.

Overall, the decoder was accurate 40% of the time. That may seem like a humble test score, but it was quite impressive given that similar brain-to-speech technical feats require hours or days-worth of data to draw from. The speech decoding algorithm Duraivel used, however, was working with only 90 seconds of spoken data from the 15-minute test.

Duraivel and his mentors are excited about making a cordless version of the device with a recent $2.4M grant from the National Institutes of Health.

“We’re now developing the same kind of recording devices, but without any wires,” Cogan said. “You’d be able to move around, and you wouldn’t have to be tied to an electrical outlet, which is really exciting.”

While their work is encouraging, there’s still a long way to go for Viventi and Cogan’s speech prosthetic to hit the shelves anytime soon.

“We’re at the point where it’s still much slower than natural speech,” Viventi said in a recent Duke Magazine piece about the technology, “but you can see the trajectory where you might be able to get there.”

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

High-resolution neural recordings improve the accuracy of speech decoding by Suseendrakumar Duraivel, Shervin Rahimpour, Chia-Han Chiang, Michael Trumpis, Charles Wang, Katrina Barth, Stephen C. Harward, Shivanand P. Lad, Allan H. Friedman, Derek G. Southwell, Saurabh R. Sinha, Jonathan Viventi & Gregory B. Cogan. Nature Communications volume 14, Article number: 6938 (2023) DO: Ihttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42555-1 Published: 06 November 2023

This paper is open access.

Accelerated healing of the tissue in the blood-brain barrier with gelatin

Leave a reply

It’s been a few years since my last brain and gelatin story (Dec. 24, 2014 posting: Gelatin nanoparticles for drug delivery after stroke) and this time they’re trying to make brain surgery easier and to reduce any attendant brain damage according to a Nov. 6, 2017 news item on ScienceDaily,

Researchers already know that gelatin-covered electrode implants cause less damage to brain tissue than electrodes with no gelatin coating. Researchers at the Neuronano Research Centre (NRC) at Lund University in Sweden have now shown that microglia, the brain’s cleansing cells, and the enzymes that the cells use in the cleaning process, change in the presence of gelatin.

“Knowledge about the beneficial effects of gelatin could be significant for brain surgery, but also in the development of brain implants,” say the researchers behind the study.

Our brains are surrounded by a blood brain barrier which protects the brain from harmful substances that could enter it via the bloodstream. When the barrier is penetrated, as in the case of biopsy or brain surgery for example, leaks can occur and cause serious inflammation. Researchers at the NRC have previously shown that gelatin accelerates brain tissue healing and reduces damage to nerve cells in the case of electrode implants, but only now are they starting to understand how.

A November 6, 2017 Lund University press release, which originated the news item, provides more details,

The researchers used sedated rats to investigate how the brain is repaired after an injury. Gelatin-coated needles were used in one group, and needles without gelatin in the other.

“The use of gelatin-coated needles reduced or eliminated the leakage of molecules (which normally don’t get through) through the blood brain barrier within twenty-four hours. Without gelatin, the leakage continued for up to three days”, says Lucas Kumosa, one of the researchers behind the study, which was recently published in the research journal Acta Biomaterialia.

Gelatin

The images in the left-hand column show the healing of an injury caused by a stainless steel needle. The images in the right-hand column show what the process looked like when the researchers used a gelatin-coated needle. Gelatin accelerated the healing process and reduced the leakage of blood-borne molecules capable of passing through the blood brain barrier into the brain and causing inflammation.

FEWER INFLAMMATORY CLEANING CELLS

When there is an injury to the brain, microglial cells – the brain’s cleaning cells – gather at the site. They clean up, but can also damage the nerve cell tissue through enzymes they release. In their study, the researchers observed a change in which cleaning cells moved towards the injury site.

“When we used gelatin, we saw only a small number of the inflammatory microglial cells. Instead, we observed cells of a different kind, that are anti-inflammatory, which we believe could be significant in accelerating healing”, explains Lucas Kumosa.

The hypothesis is that the potentially damaging enzymes are occupied with the gelatin instead.

“Gelatin is a protein and its decomposition releases amino-acids that we believe could promote the reconstruction of blood vessels and tissue”, explains Jens Schouenborg, professor of neurophysiology at Lund University.

SURGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Research is currently underway on how electrodes implanted in the brain could be used in the treatment of various diseases, such as epilepsy or Parkinson’s. A major challenge has been to find ways of reducing damage to the area when using such implants.

“Although the research field of brain electrodes is promising, it has been a challenge to find solutions that don’t damage the brain tissue. Knowledge of how injuries heal faster with gelatin could therefore be significant for the development of surgical treatment as well,” says Jens Schouenborg.

The research is funded by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council, Lund University and the Sven-Olof Jansons livsverk Foundation.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Gelatin promotes rapid restoration of the blood brain barrier after acute brain injury by Lucas S. Kumosa, Valdemar Zetterberg, Jens Schouenborg. Acta Biomaterialia https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.10.020 Available online 14 October 2017

This paper is open access.

Embroidering electronics into clothing

Leave a reply

Researchers at The Ohio State University are developing embroidered antennas and circuits with 0.1 mm precision—the perfect size to integrate electronic components such as sensors and computer memory devices into clothing. Photo by Jo McCulty, courtesy of The Ohio State University.

Researchers at The Ohio State University are developing embroidered antennas and circuits with 0.1 mm precision—the perfect size to integrate electronic components such as sensors and computer memory devices into clothing. Photo by Jo McCulty, courtesy of The Ohio State University.

An April 13, 2016 news item on Nanowerk describes an advance in the field of wearable electronics,

Researchers who are working to develop wearable electronics have reached a milestone: They are able to embroider circuits into fabric with 0.1 mm precision—the perfect size to integrate electronic components such as sensors and computer memory devices into clothing.

With this advance, the Ohio State University researchers have taken the next step toward the design of functional textiles—clothes that gather, store, or transmit digital information. With further development, the technology could lead to shirts that act as antennas for your smart phone or tablet, workout clothes that monitor your fitness level, sports equipment that monitors athletes’ performance, a bandage that tells your doctor how well the tissue beneath it is healing—or even a flexible fabric cap that senses activity in the brain.

That last item is one that John Volakis, director of the ElectroScience Laboratory at Ohio State, and research scientist Asimina Kiourti are investigating. The idea is to make brain implants, which are under development to treat conditions from epilepsy to addiction, more comfortable by eliminating the need for external wiring on the patient’s body.

An April 13, 2016 Ohio State University news release by Pam Frost Gorder, which originated the news item, expands on the theme (Note: Links have been removed),

“A revolution is happening in the textile industry,” said Volakis, who is also the Roy & Lois Chope Chair Professor of Electrical Engineering at Ohio State. “We believe that functional textiles are an enabling technology for communications and sensing—and one day even medical applications like imaging and health monitoring.”

Recently, he and Kiourti refined their patented fabrication method to create prototype wearables at a fraction of the cost and in half the time as they could only two years ago. With new patents pending, they published the new results in the journal IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters.

In Volakis’ lab, the functional textiles, also called “e-textiles,” are created in part on a typical tabletop sewing machine—the kind that fabric artisans and hobbyists might have at home. Like other modern sewing machines, it embroiders thread into fabric automatically based on a pattern loaded via a computer file. The researchers substitute the thread with fine silver metal wires that, once embroidered, feel the same as traditional thread to the touch.

“We started with a technology that is very well known—machine embroidery—and we asked, how can we functionalize embroidered shapes? How do we make them transmit signals at useful frequencies, like for cell phones or health sensors?” Volakis said. “Now, for the first time, we’ve achieved the accuracy of printed metal circuit boards, so our new goal is to take advantage of the precision to incorporate receivers and other electronic components.”

The shape of the embroidery determines the frequency of operation of the antenna or circuit, explained Kiourti.

The shape of one broadband antenna, for instance, consists of more than half a dozen interlocking geometric shapes, each a little bigger than a fingernail, that form an intricate circle a few inches across. Each piece of the circle transmits energy at a different frequency, so that they cover a broad spectrum of energies when working together—hence the “broadband” capability of the antenna for cell phone and internet access.

“Shape determines function,” she said. “And you never really know what shape you will need from one application to the next. So we wanted to have a technology that could embroider any shape for any application.”

The researchers’ initial goal, Kiourti added, was just to increase the precision of the embroidery as much as possible, which necessitated working with fine silver wire. But that created a problem, in that fine wires couldn’t provide as much surface conductivity as thick wires. So they had to find a way to work the fine thread into embroidery densities and shapes that would boost the surface conductivity and, thus, the antenna/sensor performance.

Previously, the researchers had used silver-coated polymer thread with a 0.5-mm diameter, each thread made up of 600 even finer filaments twisted together. The new threads have a 0.1-mm diameter, made with only seven filaments. Each filament is copper at the center, enameled with pure silver.

They purchase the wire by the spool at a cost of 3 cents per foot; Kiourti estimated that embroidering a single broadband antenna like the one mentioned above consumes about 10 feet of thread, for a material cost of around 30 cents per antenna. That’s 24 times less expensive than when Volakis and Kiourti created similar antennas in 2014.

In part, the cost savings comes from using less thread per embroidery. The researchers previously had to stack the thicker thread in two layers, one on top of the other, to make the antenna carry a strong enough electrical signal. But by refining the technique that she and Volakis developed, Kiourti was able to create the new, high-precision antennas in only one embroidered layer of the finer thread. So now the process takes half the time: only about 15 minutes for the broadband antenna mentioned above.

She’s also incorporated some techniques common to microelectronics manufacturing to add parts to embroidered antennas and circuits.

One prototype antenna looks like a spiral and can be embroidered into clothing to improve cell phone signal reception. Another prototype, a stretchable antenna with an integrated RFID (radio-frequency identification) chip embedded in rubber, takes the applications for the technology beyond clothing. (The latter object was part of a study done for a tire manufacturer.)

Yet another circuit resembles the Ohio State Block “O” logo, with non-conductive scarlet and gray thread embroidered among the silver wires “to demonstrate that e-textiles can be both decorative and functional,” Kiourti said.

They may be decorative, but the embroidered antennas and circuits actually work. Tests showed that an embroidered spiral antenna measuring approximately six inches across transmitted signals at frequencies of 1 to 5 GHz with near-perfect efficiency. The performance suggests that the spiral would be well-suited to broadband internet and cellular communication.

In other words, the shirt on your back could help boost the reception of the smart phone or tablet that you’re holding – or send signals to your devices with health or athletic performance data.

The work fits well with Ohio State’s role as a founding partner of the Advanced Functional Fabrics of America Institute, a national manufacturing resource center for industry and government. The new institute, which joins some 50 universities and industrial partners, was announced earlier this month by U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter.

Syscom Advanced Materials in Columbus provided the threads used in Volakis and Kiourti’s initial work. The finer threads used in this study were purchased from Swiss manufacturer Elektrisola. The research is funded by the National Science Foundation, and Ohio State will license the technology for further development.

Until then, Volakis is making out a shopping list for the next phase of the project.

“We want a bigger sewing machine,” he said.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Fabrication of Textile Antennas and Circuits With 0.1 mm Precision by A. Kiourti, C. Lee, and J. L. Volakis.  IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters (Volume:15 ) Page(s): 151 – 153 ISSN : 1536-1225 INSPEC Accession Number: 15785288 DOI: 10.1109/LAWP.2015.2435257 Date of Publication: 20 May 2015 Issue Date: 2016

This paper is behind a paywall.

Better neuroprostheses for brain diseases and mental illneses

Leave a reply

I don’t often get news releases from Sweden but I do on occasion and, sometimes, they even come in their original Swedish versions. In this case, Lund University sent me an English language version about their latest work making brain implants (neural prostheses) safer and effective. From a Sept. 29, 2015 Lund University news release (also on EurekAlert),

Neurons thrive and grow in a new type of nanowire material developed by researchers in Nanophysics and Ophthalmology at Lund University in Sweden. In time, the results might improve both neural and retinal implants, and reduce the risk of them losing their effectiveness over time, which is currently a problem

By implanting electrodes in the brain tissue one can stimulate or capture signals from different areas of the brain. These types of brain implants, or neuro-prostheses as they are sometimes called, are used to treat Parkinson’s disease and other neurological diseases.

They are currently being tested in other areas, such as depression, severe cases of autism, obsessive-compulsive disorders and paralysis. Another research track is to determine whether retinal implants are able to replace light-sensitive cells that die in cases of Retinitis Pigmentosa and other eye diseases.

However, there are severe drawbacks associated with today’s implants. One problem is that the body interprets the implants as foreign objects, resulting in an encapsulation of the electrode, which in turn leads to loss of signal.

One of the researchers explains the approach adopted by the research team (from the news release),

“Our nanowire structure prevents the cells that usually encapsulate the electrodes – glial cells – from doing so”, says Christelle Prinz, researcher in Nanophysics at Lund University in Sweden, who developed this technique together with Maria Thereza Perez, a researcher in Ophthalmology.

“I was very pleasantly surprised by these results. In previous in-vitro experiments, the glial cells usually attach strongly to the electrodes”, she says.

To avoid this, the researchers have developed a small substrate where regions of super thin nanowires are combined with flat regions. While neurons grow and extend processes on the nanowires, the glial cells primarily occupy the flat regions in between.

“The different types of cells continue to interact. This is necessary for the neurons to survive because the glial cells provide them with important molecules.”

So far, tests have only been done with cultured cells (in vitro) but hopefully they will soon be able to continue with experiments in vivo.

The substrate is made from the semiconductor material gallium phosphide where each outgrowing nanowire has a diameter of only 80 nanometres (billionths of a metre).

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Support of Neuronal Growth Over Glial Growth and Guidance of Optic Nerve Axons by Vertical Nanowire Arrays by Gaëlle Piret, Maria-Thereza Perez, and Christelle N. Prinz. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2015, 7 (34), pp 18944–18948 DOI: 10.1021/acsami.5b03798 Publication Date (Web): August 11, 2015

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society

This paper appears to be open access as I was able to link to the PDF version.

Gentle on my mind: implants inspired by sea cucumbers

Leave a reply

The hard probes they use now for brain implants scar the surrounding tissue. According to a Nov. 3, 2011 news item on Nanowerk, there may be a way to minimize the scarring,

A hard probe inserted in the cerebral cortex of a rat model turns nearly as pliable as the surrounding gray matter in minutes, and induces less of the tough scarring that walls off hard probes that do not change, researchers at Case Western Reserve University have found.

In the first test of the nanocomposite probe inspired by the dynamic skin of the sea cucumber, the immune response differed compared to that of a metal probe, and appeared to enable the brain to heal faster.

Here’s a little more about standard brain probes and this new approach (from the news item),

Brain probes are used to study and treat neurological disorders. But, wires or silicon materials being used damage surrounding tissue over time and accumulate scarring, because they are far harder than brain matter.

In this test, “The scar wall is more diffuse; the nanocomposite probe is not completely isolated in the same way a traditional stiff probe is,” said Dustin Tyler, a professor of biomedical engineering and leader of the experiment.

The result may prove beneficial. Studies by others in the field indicate the greater the isolation, the less effective the probe is at recording and relaying brain signals.

I was quite interested in the sea cucumber inspiration (from the news item),

The new probe material is inspired by the skin of the sea cucumber, which is normally soft and flexible, but becomes rigid for its own defense within seconds of being touched. These changing mechanical properties may improve our interaction with our brain, Tyler said.

In the nanocomposite, short polymer chains are linked together in a network mesh to make the material rigid, which is necessary for insertion into the cortex. In the presence of water, the mesh begin unlinking in seconds, changing to a soft, rubbery material designed to cause less damage to surrounding brain tissue over time.

For anyone who’d like to find the article,

Journal of Neural Engineering vol. 8, no. 6, “Mechanically adaptive intracortical implants improve the proximity of neuronal cell bodies”

J P Harris, J R Capadona, R H Miller, B C Healy, K Shanmuganathan, S J Rowan, C Weder and D J Tyler

doi:10.1088/1741-2560/8/6/066011

These days it seems as if biomimcry is taking over research.

On a completely other note, this research reminded of a song, Gentle on my mind, which was a big hit for Glen Campbell decades ago. It was written by John Hartford and who also sang it. I found this hommage to John Hartford on the YouTube,

Happy Weekend!