tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/bci-37632/articlesBCI – The Conversation2024-02-14T13:25:12Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2225562024-02-14T13:25:12Z2024-02-14T13:25:12ZSeveral companies are testing brain implants – why is there so much attention swirling around Neuralink? Two professors unpack the ethical issues<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575184/original/file-20240213-26-hubky4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C6%2C2083%2C1427&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Brain-computer interfaces have the potential to transform some people's lives, but they raise a host of ethical issues, too.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/artificial-intelligence-brain-royalty-free-image/1195715936?phrase=brain+computer&adppopup=true">Andriy Onufriyenko/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Putting a computer inside someone’s brain used to feel like the edge of science fiction. Today, <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-106118">it’s a reality</a>. Academic and commercial groups are testing “brain-computer interface” devices to enable people with disabilities to function more independently. Yet Elon Musk’s company, Neuralink, has put this technology front and center in debates about safety, ethics and neuroscience.</em> </p>
<p><em>In January 2024, Musk announced that Neuralink <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1752098683024220632">implanted its first chip</a> in a human subject’s brain. The Conversation reached out to two scholars at the University of Washington School of Medicine – <a href="https://depts.washington.edu/bhdept/nancy-s-jecker-phd-sheher">Nancy Jecker, a bioethicst</a>, and <a href="https://neurosurgery.uw.edu/bio/andrew-l-ko-md">Andrew Ko, a neurosurgeon</a> who implants brain chip devices – for their thoughts on the ethics of this new horizon in neuroscience.</em> </p>
<h2>How does a brain chip work?</h2>
<p>Neuralink’s coin-size device, called N1, is designed to enable patients to carry out actions just by concentrating on them, without moving their bodies.</p>
<p>Subjects in <a href="https://neuralink.com/pdfs/PRIME-Study-Brochure.pdf">the company’s PRIME study</a> – short for Precise Robotically Implanted Brain-Computer Interface – undergo surgery to place the device in a part of the brain that controls movement. The chip records and processes the brain’s electrical activity, then transmits this data to an external device, such as a phone or computer.</p>
<p>The external device “decodes” the patient’s brain activity, learning to associate certain patterns with the patient’s goal: moving a computer cursor up a screen, for example. Over time, the software can recognize a pattern of neural firing that consistently occurs while the participant is imagining that task, and then execute the task for the person. </p>
<p><a href="https://neuralink.com/#mission">Neuralink’s current trial</a> is focused on helping people with paralyzed limbs <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7o39CzHgug">control computers or smartphones</a>. Brain-computer interfaces, commonly called BCIs, can also be used to control devices <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2023.2211602">such as wheelchairs</a>.</p>
<h2>A few companies are testing BCIs. What’s different about Neuralink?</h2>
<p>Noninvasive devices positioned on the outside of a person’s head <a href="https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/challenges-and-advances-brain-computer-interfaces">have been used in clinical trials for a long time</a>, but they have not received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for commercial development. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575212/original/file-20240213-18-6c2r7t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A young woman in a green shirt sits with a wired contraption on her head as four other people look on." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575212/original/file-20240213-18-6c2r7t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575212/original/file-20240213-18-6c2r7t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575212/original/file-20240213-18-6c2r7t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575212/original/file-20240213-18-6c2r7t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575212/original/file-20240213-18-6c2r7t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575212/original/file-20240213-18-6c2r7t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575212/original/file-20240213-18-6c2r7t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A visitor experiences a BCI system during the 2023 China International Fair for Trade in Services in Beijing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/visitor-experiences-domestic-brain-computer-interface-news-photo/1648339155?adppopup=true">Li Xin/Xinhua via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are other brain-computer devices, like Neuralink’s, that are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00304-4">fully implanted and wireless</a>. However, <a href="https://neuralink.com/pdfs/PRIME-Study-Brochure.pdf">the N1 implant</a> combines more technologies in a single device: It can target individual neurons, record from thousands of sites in the brain and recharge its small battery wirelessly. These are important advances that could produce better outcomes.</p>
<h2>Why is Neuralink drawing criticism?</h2>
<p>Neuralink <a href="https://twitter.com/neuralink/status/1661857379460468736?lang=en">received FDA approval</a> for human trials in May 2023. Musk <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1752098683024220632">announced the company’s first human trial</a> on his social media platform, X – formerly Twitter – in January 2024.</p>
<p>Information about the implant, however, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/want-details-elon-musks-brain-implant-trial-youll-have-ask-him-2024-02-02/">is scarce</a>, <a href="https://neuralink.com/pdfs/PRIME-Study-Brochure.pdf">aside from a brochure</a> aimed at recruiting trial subjects. Neuralink did not register at <a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/">ClinicalTrials.gov</a>, as is <a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/policy/faq">customary, and required by some academic journals</a>. </p>
<p>Some scientists are troubled by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00304-4">this lack of transparency</a>. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.112.965798">Sharing information about clinical trials is important</a> because it helps other investigators learn about areas related to their research and can improve patient care. Academic journals can also be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467">biased toward positive results</a>, preventing researchers from learning from unsuccessful experiments. </p>
<p>Fellows at the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank, have warned that Musk’s brand of “<a href="https://www.thehastingscenter.org/the-neuralink-patient-behind-the-musk/">science by press release, while increasingly common, is not science</a>.” They advise against relying on someone with a huge financial stake in a research outcome to function as the sole source of information.</p>
<p>When scientific research is funded by <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105396">government agencies</a> or <a href="https://sciencephilanthropyalliance.org/">philanthropic groups</a>, its aim is to promote the public good. Neuralink, on the other hand, embodies <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/what-is-private-equity">a private equity model</a>, which is <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/4365741-private-equity-is-buying-up-health-care-but-the-real-problem-is-why-doctors-are-selling/">becoming more common</a> <a href="https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12719/ethically-challenged">in science</a>. Firms pooling funds from private investors to back science breakthroughs may strive to do good, but they also strive to maximize profits, which <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107555">can conflict with patients’ best interests</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575187/original/file-20240213-22-j0czv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A phone screen shows a white page that says 'Elon Musk,' positioned below an abstract black design and the word 'NEURALINK.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575187/original/file-20240213-22-j0czv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575187/original/file-20240213-22-j0czv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575187/original/file-20240213-22-j0czv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575187/original/file-20240213-22-j0czv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575187/original/file-20240213-22-j0czv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575187/original/file-20240213-22-j0czv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575187/original/file-20240213-22-j0czv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Neuralink’s first human implant was announced on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, in January 2024.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/elon-musk-account-on-twitter-and-neuralink-emblem-displayed-news-photo/1247138943?adppopup=true">NurPhoto via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-neuralink-faces-federal-probe-employee-backlash-over-animal-tests-2022-12-05/">investigated animal cruelty</a> 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. </p>
<p>In a separate incident also reported by Reuters, the Department of Transportation <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-brain-implant-company-violated-us-hazardous-material-transport-rules-2024-01-26/">fined Neuralink</a> for violating rules about transporting hazardous materials, including a flammable liquid. </p>
<h2>What other ethical issues does Neuralink’s trial raise?</h2>
<p>When brain-computer interfaces are used to help patients who suffer from disabling conditions function more independently, such as by helping them communicate or move about, this can profoundly improve their quality of life. In particular, it helps people recover a sense of their own agency or autonomy – one of <a href="https://depts.washington.edu/bhdept/ethics-medicine/bioethics-topics/articles/principles-bioethics">the key tenets</a> of medical ethics. </p>
<p>However well-intentioned, medical interventions can produce unintended consequences. With BCIs, scientists and ethicists are particularly concerned about the potential for <a href="https://theconversation.com/brain-computer-interfaces-could-allow-soldiers-to-control-weapons-with-their-thoughts-and-turn-off-their-fear-but-the-ethics-of-neurotechnology-lags-behind-the-science-194017">identity theft, password hacking and blackmail</a>. Given how the devices access users’ thoughts, there is also the possibility that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02419-x">their autonomy</a> could be manipulated by third parties. </p>
<p>The ethics of medicine requires physicians to help patients, while minimizing potential harm. In addition to errors and privacy risks, scientists worry about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00304-4">potential adverse effects</a> of a completely implanted device like Neuralink, since device components are not easily replaced after implantation.</p>
<p>When considering any invasive medical intervention, patients, providers and developers seek a balance between risk and benefit. At current levels of safety and reliability, the benefit of a permanent implant would have to be large to justify the uncertain risks.</p>
<h2>What’s next?</h2>
<p>For now, Neuralink’s trials are focused on patients with paralysis. Musk has said his ultimate goal for BCIs, however, is to help humanity – <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/7/17/20697812/elon-musk-neuralink-ai-brain-implant-thread-robot">including healthy people</a> – “<a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/30/1007786/elon-musks-neuralink-demo-update-neuroscience-theater/">keep pace” with artificial intelligence</a>.</p>
<p>This raises questions about another core tenet of medical ethics: <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41465-018-0108-x">justice</a>. Some types of supercharged brain-computer synthesis could exacerbate social inequalities if only wealthy citizens have access to enhancements.</p>
<p>What is more immediately concerning, however, is 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 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2023.04.016">prospect of losing access after the study ends</a> can be devastating. This raises thorny questions about whether it is ever ethical to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103868">provide early access</a> to breakthrough medical interventions prior to their receiving full FDA approval.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365700467_The_Unique_and_Practical_Advantages_of_Applying_A_Capability_Approach_to_Brain_Computer_Interface">Clear ethical and legal guidelines are needed</a> to ensure the benefits that stem from scientific innovations like Neuralink’s brain chip are balanced against patient safety and societal good.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222556/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Brain-computer interface devices have the potential to boost users’ autonomy, especially for people who experience paralysis. But that comes with risks, as well.Nancy S. Jecker, Professor of Bioethics and Humanities, School of Medicine, University of WashingtonAndrew Ko, Assistant Professor of Neurological Surgery, School of Medicine, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2223732024-02-01T17:33:59Z2024-02-01T17:33:59ZThe first Neuralink brain implant signals a new phase for human-computer interaction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572513/original/file-20240131-19-40gn6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=26%2C0%2C5765%2C3994&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Neuralink is developing devices that enable direct communication between the human brain and computers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/the-first-neuralink-brain-implant-signals-a-new-phase-for-human-computer-interaction" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/neuralink-implants-brain-chip-first-human-musk-says-2024-01-29">first human has received a Neuralink brain chip implant</a>, according to co-founder Elon Musk. The neurotechnology company has started its first human trial since <a href="https://www.reuters.com/science/elon-musks-neuralink-gets-us-fda-approval-human-clinical-study-brain-implants-2023-05-25/">receiving approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration</a> in 2023.</p>
<p>The trial’s focus is on an implant that could potentially allow people with <a href="https://neuralink.com/patient-registry/">severe physical disabilities to control digital devices using their thoughts</a>. The study involves <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-neuralink-start-human-trials-brain-implant-2023-09-19/">implanting a brain chip</a> — called a brain-computer interface implant — in the region of the brain that controls movement intention. </p>
<p>Musk has said the patient who received the implant — <a href="https://www.cnet.com/health/medical/neuralinks-brain-chip-is-now-in-a-human-your-skull-is-safe-for-now/">fittingly named Telepathy</a> — is “recovering well” and that “initial results show promising neuron spike detection.” No other details about the trial have been provided yet.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1752098683024220632"}"></div></p>
<p>This development is more than just a technical milestone; it represents a major leap in potential human-computer interaction, raising important questions about the integration of advanced technology with the human body and mind.</p>
<h2>Neuralink’s mission</h2>
<p>Neuralink’s <a href="https://neuralink.com/">stated mission</a> is to “create a generalized brain interface to restore autonomy to those with unmet medical needs today and unlock human potential tomorrow.” This mission communicates two key approaches. </p>
<p>In the short term, the focus will be on individuals with medical needs. The long-term vision extends far beyond this, alluding to a goal of augmenting human potential. This suggests Neuralink envisions a future where its technology transcends medical use and becomes a tool for cognitive and sensory enhancement in the general population.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z7o39CzHgug?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A video from Neuralink about its first human clinical trial.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The evolution of Neuralink presents a range of possible future scenarios. The first scenario envisions successful trials leading to adoption in niche markets, signifying a breakthrough but with restricted scope. </p>
<p>The second, more optimistic scenario, involves widespread acceptance after successful human trials, with the potential to revolutionize our interaction with technology. And the third — a more pessimistic view — considers the venture’s failure, driven by many societal, technological, legal and medical factors. </p>
<h2>The realistic scenario</h2>
<p>In the most realistic scenario, Neuralink is expected to achieve success by focusing on medical applications for individuals with severe disabilities. This targeted approach is likely to <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179367">resonate with consumers in need of life-changing technologies</a>, which will drive early adoption within this specific demographic. </p>
<p>In this case, wider acceptance from the broader consumer base will hinge on various factors, including the technology’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05019">perceived usefulness</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.12.010">privacy implications and the overall risk-benefit perception</a>.</p>
<p>Socially, Neuralink’s trajectory will be significantly influenced by <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5040031">public and ethical discussions</a>. Issues surrounding data security, long-term health implications and equitable access will likely dominate public discourse. </p>
<p>Widespread acceptance of Neuralink’s technology will depend on its medical efficacy and safety, combined with Neuralink’s ability to address ethical concerns and gain public trust.</p>
<h2>The optimistic scenario</h2>
<p>In the optimistic scenario, Neuralink’s technology transcends its initial medical applications and integrates into everyday life. This scenario envisions a future where the technology’s benefits are clearly demonstrated and recognized beyond its medical use, generating interest across various sectors of society.</p>
<p>Consumer interest in Neuralink would extend beyond those with medical needs, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13040">driven by the appeal of enhanced cognitive abilities and sensory experiences</a>. As people become more familiar with the technology, concerns about invasiveness and data privacy may decrease, especially if Neuralink can provide robust safety and security assurances.</p>
<p>From a societal standpoint, the optimistic scenario sees Neuralink as a catalyst for positive change. The technology could bridge gaps in human potential, offering new ways of interaction and communication. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A middle-aged man in a suit gestures while speaking" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572512/original/file-20240131-17-g477cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572512/original/file-20240131-17-g477cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572512/original/file-20240131-17-g477cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572512/original/file-20240131-17-g477cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572512/original/file-20240131-17-g477cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572512/original/file-20240131-17-g477cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572512/original/file-20240131-17-g477cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Elon Musk, co-founder of Neuralink, speaking at VivaTech, one of Europe’s largest tech and start-up fairs, in June 2023 in Paris, France.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although ethical concerns would still exist, the potential benefits in education, workforce productivity and overall quality of life could outweigh them. Regulatory bodies might adopt more accommodating policies, influenced by public enthusiasm and the technology’s track record in improving lives.</p>
<p>In this scenario, Neuralink becomes a symbol of human advancement, seamlessly integrating into daily life and opening new possibilities in human-machine interaction. </p>
<p>Its success would set a precedent for other technologies at the intersection of biology and technology, like <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2021.01.002">gene editing technologies </a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a034306">bioelectronic medicine</a>, paving the way for a future where such integrations are the norm.</p>
<h2>The pessimistic scenario</h2>
<p>In the pessimistic scenario, Neuralink will face significant challenges that hinder its widespread adoption and success. <a href="https://rdcu.be/dxnKL">This scenario considers the possibility of the technology failing to meet the high expectations set for it</a>, either due to technological limitations, safety concerns or ethical dilemmas.</p>
<p>From a technological standpoint, the complexity of interfacing directly with the human brain could be more complex than anticipated, leading to underwhelming performance or reliability issues. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5040031">Physical and psychological safety concerns</a> might also be more significant than initially thought, with potential long-term health implications that could deter both consumers and medical professionals.</p>
<p>The invasive nature of the technology and privacy concerns related to brain data could lead to widespread public apprehension. This skepticism could be compounded if early applications of the technology are perceived as benefiting only a select few, <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo68657177.html">exacerbating social inequalities</a>.</p>
<p>Ethically, the prospect of brain-computer interfaces could raise questions about <a href="https://rdcu.be/dxstZ">human identity</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9466-4">autonomy and the nature of consciousness</a>. These concerns might fuel public opposition, leading to stringent regulatory restrictions and slowing down research and development.</p>
<p>In this scenario, Neuralink’s ambitious vision might be curtailed by a combination of technological hurdles, public mistrust, ethical controversies and regulatory challenges, ultimately leading to the project’s stagnation or decline.</p>
<p>While Neuralink presents numerous possibilities, its journey isn’t merely about technological advancement. The outcome of this venture holds key implications for the future of neural interfaces and our understanding of human capabilities, underscoring the need for a thoughtful approach to such innovation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222373/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Omar H. Fares does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Neuralink’s first human trial is more than just a technical milestone; it represents a major leap in potential human-computer interaction.Omar H. Fares, Lecturer in the Ted Rogers School of Retail Management, Toronto Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2066102023-05-30T02:43:27Z2023-05-30T02:43:27ZThe FDA finally approved Elon Musk’s Neuralink chip for human trials. Have all the concerns been addressed?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528830/original/file-20230529-27-wug34x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C1%2C1270%2C900&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://pixabay.com/photos/brain-think-ghost-conductor-tracks-6553819/">Pixabay</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since its founding in 2016, Elon Musk’s neurotechnology company Neuralink has had the ambitious <a href="https://www.jobsage.com/companies/about/neuralink">mission</a> to build a next-generation brain implant with at least <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/60116608">100 times</a> more brain connections than devices currently approved by the US <a href="https://www.fda.gov/">Food and Drug Administration</a> (FDA). </p>
<p>The company has now reached a significant milestone, having received <a href="https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1662916708183441408">FDA approval</a> to begin <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FJIrin9hbc">human trials</a>. 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?</p>
<h2>What is Neuralink?</h2>
<p>Neuralink is making a <a href="https://bmpmedical.com/whats-difference-fda-medical-device-classes-2/#:%7E:text=Class%20III%20medical%20devices%20are,devices%20regulated%20by%20the%20FDA.">Class III medical device</a> known as a brain-computer interface (<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497935/">BCI</a>). The device connects the brain to an external computer via a Bluetooth signal, enabling continuous communication back and forth.</p>
<p>The device itself is a coin-sized unit called a Link. It’s <a href="https://www.cnet.com/science/elon-musk-shows-neuralink-brain-implant-working-in-a-pig/">implanted</a> 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. Each thread is about a quarter the diameter of a human hair.</p>
<h2>Potential benefits</h2>
<p>If Neuralink’s BCI can be made to work safely on humans, I believe the <a href="https://techaeris.com/2023/05/27/neuralink-debating-the-pros-and-cons-of-future-tech/">potential benefits</a> would make the effort worthwhile.</p>
<p>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 <a href="https://thewest.com.au/technology/elon-musk-company-wins-approval-for-brain-implant-study-c-10785485">treatment</a> of obesity, autism, depression, schizophrenia and <a href="https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-claims-his-neuralink-brain-chip-could-cure-tinnitus-in-5years-but-dont-hold-your-breath-182156">tinnitus</a>.</p>
<p>Several <a href="https://n.neurology.org/content/100/11/e1177">other neurotechnology companies</a> and researchers have already developed BCI technologies that have helped people with limited mobility <a href="https://www.engadget.com/swiss-researchers-help-a-spinal-injury-patient-to-walk-more-naturally-using-a-wireless-bci-151542965.html">regain movement</a> and <a href="https://n.neurology.org/content/100/11/e1177">complete</a> <a href="https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/brain-computer-interface-allows-paralyzed-patients-to-use-off-shelf-tablet">daily tasks</a>.</p>
<p>BCIs have also been used to help <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2020.00692/full">older people</a> train their motor and cognitive abilities to moderate the worst effects of ageing. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/weve-been-connecting-brains-to-computers-longer-than-youd-expect-these-3-companies-are-leading-the-way-197023">We've been connecting brains to computers longer than you’d expect. These 3 companies are leading the way</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The long road to FDA approval for human trials</h2>
<p>In <a href="https://www.teslarati.com/neuralink-first-human-trials-date-elon-musk/">February 2021</a>, 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.</p>
<p>Then, in March 2022, Neuralink made a <a href="https://www.techtimes.com/articles/288461/20230302/neuralink-applied-human-trials-2022-fda-rejected-it.htm">further application</a> to the FDA to establish its readiness to begin humans trials.</p>
<p>One year and three months later, on May 25 2023, Neuralink finally received FDA <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/25/elon-musk-neuralink-fda-approval/">approval</a> for its first human clinical trial. Given how hard Neuralink has pushed for permission to begin, we can assume it will begin very soon. </p>
<p>The approval has come less than six months after the US Office of the Inspector General <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/20/neuralink-animal-testing-musk-investigation">launched an investigation</a> into Neuralink over potential animal welfare violations.</p>
<h2>What were the FDA’s concerns?</h2>
<p>The FDA had quite a list of issues that needed to be resolved before human trials could commence, as was reported in a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/neuralink-musk-fda/">Reuters investigation</a>, which claimed to have spoken to several Neuralink sources. </p>
<p>Most of these concerns called for Neuralink to perform thorough and repeated testing and data collection over an extended period. This was likely a deciding factor in why the approval process to begin human testing took as long as it did. </p>
<p>It can’t be said with certainty that all of the issues have been fully resolved. But considering the rigour of the FDA’s approval process, we might conclude they have at least been resolved to a point of satisfaction for the FDA.</p>
<h1>Safe surgery</h1>
<p><br>
A precision robot known as Implant/r1 performs the surgical procedure to implant the Neuralink BCI. This robot surgeon had to be put through its <a href="https://newatlas.com/computers/neuralink-progress-update/">paces</a> to gather evidence that it could reliably and safely implant and remove the Neuralink BCI without damaging surrounding brain tissue, or creating the risk of infection, bleeding, inflammation or scarring.</p>
<h1>Harmful side effects</h1>
<p><br>
Once implanted, the Neuralink BCI must function as intended. It must not unintentionally influence other brain functions, or cause any unwanted <a href="https://www.presencesecure.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-neuralink-on-humans/">side effects</a> such as seizures, headaches, mood changes, or cognitive impairment. </p>
<h1>Safe power supply</h1>
<p><br>
In particular, overheating lithium-ion batteries can pose great risk to BCI users. When defective, such batteries have historically been known to <a href="https://profoundtips.com/questions/what-causes-a-lithium-battery-to-overheat/">overheat</a>. They can even explode if the insulation between the cathode and anode (the metal electrode components) breaks down, resulting in a short circuit. </p>
<p>The longevity of the battery was also taken into account, as well as how easy it would be to safely replace from its position under the skin behind the ear. Since the FDA’s previous rejection, extensive tests have been <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/neuralink-musk-fda/">conducted</a> on the specially designed Neuralink battery to evaluate its performance, durability and bio-compatibility. </p>
<h1>Wire migration</h1>
<p><br>
Then there is the risk of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/neuralink-musk-fda/">wire migration</a>. The Link consists of a disk-shaped chip with very thin wire electrodes that connect to neurons in the brain. </p>
<p>Connecting these wires by means of a surgical robot is a major challenge in itself. But there is also the possibility the electrodes could move elsewhere in the brain over time due to natural movement, inflammation, or scar tissue formation. This would likely affect the proper functioning of the device, and could cause infection or damage to the brain tissue.</p>
<p>Neuralink had to conduct extensive animal studies and provide evidence its wires did not migrate significantly over time, or cause any adverse effects on the brain. The company also had to show it had a method for tracking and adjusting the position of the wires if this became necessary.</p>
<h1>Implant removal</h1>
<p><br>
Another challenge Neuralink faced was that of safe implant <a href="https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/34781/20211130/neuralink-chip-removed-experts-want-think-through-before-doing.htm">removal</a>. The FDA wanted to know how easy or difficult it would be to remove the device from the brain if this became necessary. </p>
<h1>Data privacy and security</h1>
<p><br>
Strong <a href="https://fpf.org/blog/five-top-of-mind-data-protection-recommendations-for-brain-computer-interfaces/">safeguards</a> are required to prevent data collected by the Link from being hacked, manipulated or otherwise misused. Neuralink would have had to assure the FDA it could avoid nightmare scenarios of hackers rendering its Link users vulnerable to interference, as well as guaranteeing the privacy of brain-wave data generated by the device. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/our-neurodata-can-reveal-our-most-private-selves-as-brain-implants-become-common-how-will-it-be-protected-197047">Our neurodata can reveal our most private selves. As brain implants become common, how will it be protected?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The way ahead</h2>
<p>Critics acknowledge the potential benefits of Neuralink, but caution the company to hasten slowly. Adequately addressing these issues will take time – and corners must not be cut when arriving at a solution. </p>
<p>Beyond the Link’s potential medical uses, Musk has made many radical claims regarding his future vision for the technology. He has claimed Neuralink could augment human intelligence by creating an on-demand connection with artificial intelligence systems – allowing, for example, improved cognition through enhanced memory, and improved learning and problem-solving skills.</p>
<p>He has even gone as far as to say the Link could allow high-bandwidth <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/brain-computer-interface-neuralink-elon-musk-telepathy-a9097821.html">telepathic</a> communication between two or more people connected via a mediating computer. Common sense would suggest these claims be put in the “I’ll believe it when I see it” category. </p>
<p>The situation with Neuralink has clear parallels with current advancements in AI (and the growing need to regulate it). As exciting as these technologies are, they must not be released to the public until proven to be safe. This can only be achieved by exhaustive testing.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/futurists-predict-a-point-where-humans-and-machines-become-one-but-will-we-see-it-coming-196293">Futurists predict a point where humans and machines become one. But will we see it coming?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206610/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Tuffley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An expert explain the various concerns that were holding up FDA approval – from potential harmful side effects, to protecting the privacy of users’ brain-wave data.David Tuffley, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1970232023-03-27T02:40:02Z2023-03-27T02:40:02ZWe’ve been connecting brains to computers longer than you’d expect. These 3 companies are leading the way<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514344/original/file-20230308-20-terjnk.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5120%2C2874&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since it was founded in 2016, Elon Musk’s brain-computer interface (BCI) company Neuralink has had its moments in biotech news. </p>
<p>Whether it was the time Musk promised his “link” would let people <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/04/22/242999/with-neuralink-elon-musk-promises-human-to-human-telepathy-dont-believe-it/">communicate telepathically</a>, or when the whole company was under investigation for <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/12/11/23500157/neuralink-animal-testing-elon-musk-usda-probe">potentially violating</a> the Animal Welfare Act, the hype around Neuralink means it’s often the first mental reference people have for BCI technology. </p>
<p>But BCIs have been kicking around for much longer than you’d expect. Musk’s is just one in a growing list of companies dedicated to advancing this technology. Let’s take a look back at some BCI milestones over the past decades, and forward to where they might lead us.</p>
<h2>An expanding sector</h2>
<p>Brain-computer interfaces are devices that connect the brain with a computer to allow the user to complete some kind of action using their brain signals.</p>
<p>Many high-profile companies entered the BCI field in the 2010s, backed by millions of dollars in investment. Founded in 2016, the American company <a href="https://www.whoop.com/thelocker/podcast-117-kernel-ceo-bryan-johnson/#">Kernel</a> began by researching implantable devices, before switching to focus on non-invasive techniques that don’t require surgery. </p>
<p>Even Facebook gave BCIs a go, with an ambitious plan to create a headset that would let users type 100 words per minute. But it <a href="https://tech.facebook.com/reality-labs/2021/7/bci-milestone-new-research-from-ucsf-with-support-from-facebook-shows-the-potential-of-brain-computer-interfaces-for-restoring-speech-communication/#">stopped this research</a> in 2021 to focus on other types of human-computer interfaces.</p>
<h2>First contact</h2>
<p>Developed in the 1970s, the earliest BCIs were relatively straightforward, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7824107/">used</a> on cats and other animals to develop communication pathways. The first device implanted in a human was developed by Jonathan Wolpaw <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1707798/">in 1991</a>, and allowed its user to control a cursor with their brain signals.</p>
<p>Advances in machine learning through the years paved the way for more sophisticated BCIs. These could control complex devices, including <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.01243/full">robotic limbs, wheelchairs</a> and exoskeletons. We’ve also seen devices get progressively smaller and easier to use thanks to wireless connectivity.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1GyJBBB8O_M?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Like many newer BCI devices, <a href="https://neuralink.com/approach/">Neuralink</a> has yet to receive approval for clinical trials of its invasive implant. Its latest application to the US Food and Drug Administration <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/neuralink-musk-fda/">was rejected</a>.</p>
<p>There are, however, three notable groups conducting clinical trials that are worth keeping an eye on. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/futurists-predict-a-point-where-humans-and-machines-become-one-but-will-we-see-it-coming-196293">Futurists predict a point where humans and machines become one. But will we see it coming?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>1. BrainGate</h2>
<p>Founded in 1998 in Massachusetts, the <a href="https://www.braingate.com/about/">BrainGate</a> system has been around since the late 1990s. This makes it one of the oldest advanced BCI implant systems. Its device is placed in the brain using microneedles, similar to the technology Neuralink uses. </p>
<p>BrainGate’s devices are probably the most advanced when it comes to BCI functionality. One of its wired devices offers a typing speed of 90 characters per minute, or 1.5 characters per second. A <a href="https://n.neurology.org/content/early/2023/01/13/WNL.0000000000201707">study</a> published in January released results from data collected over 17 years from 14 participants.</p>
<p>During this time there were 68 instances of “adverse events” including infection, seizures, surgical complications, irritation around the implant, and brain damage. However, the most common event was irritation. Only six of the 68 incidents were considered “serious”.</p>
<p>Apart from communication applications, BrainGate has also achieved robotic control for self-feeding.</p>
<h2>2. UMC Utrecht</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.umcutrecht.nl/en/over-ons/nieuws/details/brain-computer-interfaces-for-paralyzed-people">University Medical Centre</a> in Utrecht, Netherlands, was the first to achieve fully wireless implanted BCI technology that patients could take home.</p>
<p>Its device uses electrocorticography-based BCI (ECoG). Electrodes in the form of metal discs are placed directly on the surface of the brain to receive signals. They connect wirelessly to a receiver, which in turn connects to a computer.</p>
<p>Participants in a <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1608085">clinical trial</a> that ran from 2020 to 2022 were able to take the device home and use it every day for about a year. It allowed them to control a computer screen and type at a speed of two characters per minute. </p>
<p>While this typing speed is slow, future versions with more electrodes are expected to perform better.</p>
<h2>3. Synchron (originally SmartStent)</h2>
<p><a href="https://synchron.com/">Synchron</a> was founded in 2016 in Melbourne, Australia. In 2019, it became the first company to be approved for clinical trials in Australia. Then in 2020 it became the first company to receive FDA approval to run clinical trials using a permanently implanted BCI – and finally did this with a <a href="https://www.mpo-mag.com/issues/temp2022/view_breaking-news/synchron-achieves-first-human-us-brain-computer-interface-implant/#">US patient</a> this year. </p>
<p>Synchron’s approach is to bypass full brain surgery by using blood vessels to implant electrodes in the brain. This minimally invasive approach is similar to other stenting procedures routinely performed in clinics.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514155/original/file-20230308-24-7l4wg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514155/original/file-20230308-24-7l4wg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514155/original/file-20230308-24-7l4wg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514155/original/file-20230308-24-7l4wg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514155/original/file-20230308-24-7l4wg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514155/original/file-20230308-24-7l4wg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514155/original/file-20230308-24-7l4wg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514155/original/file-20230308-24-7l4wg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Synchron’s very small ‘stentrode’ can be implanted with a minimally invasive procedure.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Synchron</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Synchron’s device is placed in the brain near the area that controls movement, and a wireless transmitter is placed in the chest. This transmitter then conveys brain signals to a computer.</p>
<p>Initial <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/article-abstract/2799839">clinical results</a> have shown no adverse effects and a functionality of 14 characters per minute using both the BCI and eye tracking. Results were not reported for BCI use alone.</p>
<p>Although its device efficiency could be improved, Synchron’s approach means it leads the way in achieving a low barrier for entry. By avoiding the need for full brain surgery, it’s helping to bring BCI implantation closer to being a day procedure.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/our-neurodata-can-reveal-our-most-private-selves-as-brain-implants-become-common-how-will-it-be-protected-197047">Our neurodata can reveal our most private selves. As brain implants become common, how will it be protected?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The benefits must outweigh the risks</h2>
<p>The history of BCIs reveals the immense challenges involved in developing this technology. These are compounded by the fact that experts still don’t fully understand the links between our neural circuitry and thoughts.</p>
<p>It’s also unclear which BCI features consumers will prioritise moving forward, or what they’d be willing to sign up for. Not everyone will happily opt for an invasive brain procedure – yet <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21438193/#">the systems</a> that don’t require this collect “noisy” data that aren’t as efficient.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514160/original/file-20230308-14-jdrofu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514160/original/file-20230308-14-jdrofu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514160/original/file-20230308-14-jdrofu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514160/original/file-20230308-14-jdrofu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514160/original/file-20230308-14-jdrofu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514160/original/file-20230308-14-jdrofu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514160/original/file-20230308-14-jdrofu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514160/original/file-20230308-14-jdrofu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Electroencephalogram-based (EEG) BCIs don’t require surgery, but being less invasive means they’re also less effective.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Answers will emerge as more devices gain approval for clinical trials and research is published on the results. </p>
<p>Importantly, developers of these technologies must not rush through trials. They have a responsibility to be transparent about the safety and efficacy of their devices, and to report on them openly so consumers can make informed decisions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197023/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sam John receives funding from US Department of Defence, NHMRC, DJPR Vic Government.
Sam John is an inventor on patents relating the the Stentrode technology and brain machine interfaces, licenced to Synchron through the University of Melbourne.</span></em></p>Neuralink might get all the press – but these unsung heroes are pioneering brain-computer interface technology.Sam John, Senior Lecturer in Neural Engineering, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1962932023-03-13T19:06:06Z2023-03-13T19:06:06ZFuturists predict a point where humans and machines become one. But will we see it coming?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512805/original/file-20230301-24-xdhza.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=22%2C89%2C7466%2C4401&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Most people are familiar with the deluge of artificial intelligence (AI) apps that seem designed to make us more efficient and creative. We’ve got apps that take text prompts and generate art, and the controversial ChatGPT, which raises serious questions about originality, misinformation and plagiarism. </p>
<p>Despite these concerns, AI is becoming ever more pervasive and intrusive. It’s the latest technology that will <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-artificial-intelligence-is-transforming-the-world/">irreversibly change</a> <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/ai-impact#:%7E:text=The%20creation%20of%20a%20human,without%20developing%20human%2Dlevel%20AI.">our lives</a>. </p>
<p>The internet and smartphones were other examples. But unlike those technologies, many philosophers and scientists think AI could one day reach (or even go beyond) human-style “thinking”. This possibility, coupled with our increasing dependence on AI, is at the root of a concept in futurism called “<a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262527804/the-technological-singularity/">technological singularity</a>”. </p>
<p>This term has been around for a while, having been <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17082-five-futurist-visionaries-and-what-they-got-right/">popularised</a> by the US science fiction writer Vernor Vinge a few decades ago.</p>
<p>Today, the “singularity” refers to a hypothetical point in time at which the development of <a href="https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/artificial-general-intelligence-AGI#">artificial general intelligence</a> (AGI) – that is, AI with human-level abilities – becomes so advanced that it will irreversibly change human civilisation.</p>
<p>It would mark the dawn of our inseparability from machines. From that moment on, we won’t be able to live without them without ceasing to function as human beings. But if the singularity comes, will we even notice it?</p>
<h2>Brain implants as the first stage</h2>
<p>To understand why this isn’t the stuff of fairy tales, we need only look as far as recent developments in brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). BCIs are a natural beginning to the singularity in the eyes of many futurists, because they meld mind and machine in a way no other technology so far can.</p>
<p>Elon Musk’s company <a href="https://neuralink.com/">Neuralink</a> is <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/12/07/elon-musks-neuralink-brain-implant-could-begin-human-trials-in-2023/?sh=525abf96147c">seeking permission</a> from the US Food and Drug Administration to begin human trials for its BCI technology. This would involve implanting neural connectors into volunteers’ brains so they can communicate instructions by thinking them.</p>
<p>Neuralink hopes to help paraplegic people walk and blind people see again. But beyond these goals are other ambitions. </p>
<p>Musk has <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/13/elon-musk-humans-merge-machines-cyborg-artificial-intelligence-robots.html">long said</a> he believes brain implants will allow <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/04/22/242999/with-neuralink-elon-musk-promises-human-to-human-telepathy-dont-believe-it/">telepathic communication</a>, and lead to the co-evolution of humans and machines. He <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/elon-musk-billion-dollar-crusade-to-stop-ai-space-x">argues</a> that unless we use such technology to augment our intellects, we risk being wiped out by super-intelligent AI. </p>
<p>Musk is understandably not everyone’s go-to for <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/elon-musk-twitter-terrible-things-hes-said-and-done">tech expertise</a>. But he’s not alone in predicting a massive growth in AI’s capabilities. Surveys show AI researchers <a href="https://research.aimultiple.com/artificial-general-intelligence-singularity-timing/">overwhelmingly agree</a> AI will achieve human-level “thinking” within this century. What they don’t agree on is whether this implies consciousness or not, or whether this necessarily means AI will do us harm once it reaches this level.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/our-neurodata-can-reveal-our-most-private-selves-as-brain-implants-become-common-how-will-it-be-protected-197047">Our neurodata can reveal our most private selves. As brain implants become common, how will it be protected?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Another BCI technology company, <a href="https://synchron.com/">Synchron</a>, has created a minimally invasive implant that allowed a patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) to send emails and browse the internet using his thoughts. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mm95r05hui0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A patient demonstrates the capabilities of Synchron’s interface.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Synchron chief executive Tom Oxley believes brain implants could ultimately go beyond prosthetic rehabilitation and completely transform how humans communicate. Speaking to a <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_oxley_a_brain_implant_that_turns_your_thoughts_into_text/transcript?language=en">TED audience</a>, he said they may one day allow users to “throw” their emotions so others can feel what they’re feeling, and “the full potential of the brain would then be unlocked”.</p>
<p>Early achievements in BCIs could arguably be considered the first stages of a tumbling towards the postulated singularity, in which human and machine become one. This need not imply machines will become “sentient” or control us. But the integration itself, and our ensuing dependency on it, could change us irrevocably. </p>
<p>It’s also worth mentioning that the start-up funding for Synchron <a href="https://globalventuring.com/university/darpa-helps-implant-10m-in-synchron/">partly came from DARPA</a>, the research and development arm of the US Department of Defense that helped <a href="https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/modern-internet#:%7E:text=ARPA%20research%20played%20a%20central,gave%20birth%20to%20the%20Internet.">gift the world</a> the internet. It’s probably wise to be concerned about where DARPA places its investment monies.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/our-neurodata-can-reveal-our-most-private-selves-as-brain-implants-become-common-how-will-it-be-protected-197047">Our neurodata can reveal our most private selves. As brain implants become common, how will it be protected?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Would AGI be friend or foe?</h2>
<p>According to Ray Kurzweil, a futurist and former Google innovations engineer, humans with AI-augmented minds could be thrown onto the autobahn of evolution – hurtling forward without speed limits. </p>
<p>In his 2012 book How to Create a Mind, <a href="https://youtu.be/RIkxVci-R4k">Kurzweil theorises</a> the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/neocortex#:%7E:text=The%20neocortex%20is%20a%20complex,perception%2C%20emotion%2C%20and%20cognition.">neocortex</a> – the part of the brain thought to be responsible for “higher functions” such as sensory perception, emotion and cognition – is a hierarchical system of pattern recognisers which, if emulated in a machine, could lead to artificial super-intelligence. </p>
<p>He predicts the singularity will be <a href="https://futurism.com/kurzweil-claims-that-the-singularity-will-happen-by-2045">with us by 2045</a>, and thinks it might bring about a world of super-intelligent humans, perhaps even the Nietzschean “Übermensch”: someone who surpasses all worldly constraints to realise their full potential.</p>
<p>But not everyone sees AGI as a good thing. The late, great theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking warned super-intelligent AI could <a href="https://time.com/3614349/artificial-intelligence-singularity-stephen-hawking-elon-musk/">result in the apocalypse</a>. In 2014, Hawking told the BBC</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race. […] It would take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hawking was, however, an advocate <a href="https://www.insider.com/brain-computer-interface-what-is-it-how-does-it-work-2022-9">for BCIs</a>.</p>
<h2>Connected in a hive mind</h2>
<p>Another idea that relates to the singularity is that of the AI-enabled “hive mind”. Merriam-Webster <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hive%20mind">defines a hive mind</a> as </p>
<blockquote>
<p>the collective mental activity expressed in the complex, coordinated behaviour of a colony of social insects (such as bees or ants) regarded as comparable to a single mind controlling the behaviour of an individual organism.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A theory has been developed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi around this phenomenon, called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory">Integrated Information Theory</a> (IIT). It suggests we are all heading toward a merger of all minds and all data.</p>
<p>Philosopher Philip Goff does a good job of explaining the implications of Tononi’s concept in his book <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/599229/galileos-error-by-philip-goff/">Galileo’s Error</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>IIT predicts that if the growth of internet-based connectivity ever resulted in the amount of integrated information in society surpassing the amount of integrated information in a human brain, then not only would society become conscious but human brains would be ‘absorbed’ into that higher form of consciousness. Brains would cease to be conscious in their own right and would instead become mere cogs in the mega-conscious entity that is the society including its internet-based connectivity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s worth noting there’s little evidence such a thing could ever come to fruition. But the theory raises important ideas about not only the rapid acceleration of technology (not to mention how quantum computing might propel this) – but about the nature of consciousness itself.</p>
<p>Hypothetically, if a hive mind were to emerge, one could imagine it would mark the end of individuality and the institutions that rely on it, including democracy.</p>
<h2>The final frontier is between our ears</h2>
<p><a href="https://openai.com/blog/planning-for-agi-and-beyond/">Recently</a> OpenAI (the company that developed ChatGPT) released a blog post reaffirming its commitment to achieving AGI. Others will doubtless follow.</p>
<p>Our lives are becoming algorithmically driven in ways we often can’t discern, and therefore can’t avoid. Many features of a technological singularity promise amazing enhancements to our lives, but it’s a worry these AIs are the products of private industry. </p>
<p>They are virtually unregulated, and largely at the whims of impulsive “technopreneurs” with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/28/elon-musk-richest-man-tesla-shares-rise#">more money than</a> than most of us combined. Regardless of whether we consider them crazy, naïve, or visionaries, we have a right to know their plans (and be able to rebut them).</p>
<p>If the past few decades are anything to go by, where new technologies are concerned, all of us will be affected.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/netflixs-the-social-dilemma-highlights-the-problem-with-social-media-but-whats-the-solution-147351">Netflix's The Social Dilemma highlights the problem with social media, but what's the solution?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196293/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Experts largely agree that AI with human-level capabilities is not that far off. How will this change out relationship with machines?John Kendall Hawkins, Philosopher, University of New EnglandSandy Boucher, Lecturer in the Philosophy of Science, University of New EnglandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1205622019-07-19T11:37:56Z2019-07-19T11:37:56ZBrain-machine interfaces are getting better and better – and Neuralink’s new brain implant pushes the pace<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284860/original/file-20190718-116596-y5uxrr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=472%2C60%2C5965%2C4406&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Existing BMIs focus on restoring function for people with mobility or communication issues.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">UPMC/Pitt Health Sciences</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Elon Musk grabbed a lot of attention in 2019 with the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/elon-musk-brain-machine-startup-neuralink-plans-human-trials-in-2020.html">presentation</a> of his company Neuralink’s brain-machine interface technology. The company plans to implant electrodes into the brains of people with paralysis to help them communicate and control robotic limbs. Musk stepped into the limelight again on Aug. 28 to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVvmgjBL74w&feature=youtu.be">livestream</a> a demonstration of the company’s improved surgical robot and an <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musk-shows-neuralink-brain-implant-working-in-a-pig/">implant working in a pig</a>.</p>
<p>If you haven’t been paying attention, brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) that allow people to control robotic arms with their thoughts might sound like science fiction. But science and engineering efforts have already turned it into reality.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.braingate.org">In a</a> <a href="https://nptl.stanford.edu">few research</a> <a href="http://www.vis.caltech.edu">labs around</a> <a href="https://www.battelle.org/inb/neurotechnology-at-battelle">the world</a>, scientists and physicians have been implanting devices into the brains of people who have lost the ability to control their arms or hands for over a decade. In <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lAoUqf8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">our</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=hb8kyfUAAAAJ&hl=en">own</a> <a href="http://www.rnel.pitt.edu">research group</a> at the <a href="https://www.pitt.edu">University of Pittsburgh</a>, we’ve enabled people with paralyzed arms and hands to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61816-9">control robotic arms</a> that allow them to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/12/1/016011">grasp and move objects</a> with relative ease. They can even experience <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf8083">touch-like sensations</a> from their own hand when the robot grasps objects.</p>
<p>At its core, a BMI is pretty straightforward. In your brain, microscopic cells called neurons are sending signals back and forth to each other all the time. Everything you think, do and feel as you interact with the world around you is the result of the activity of these 80 billion or so neurons.</p>
<p>If you implant a tiny wire very close to one of these neurons, you can record the electrical activity it generates and send it to a computer. Record enough of these signals from the right area of the brain and it becomes possible to control computers, robots or anything else you might want, simply by thinking about moving. But doing this comes with tremendous technical challenges, especially if you want to record from hundreds or thousands of neurons.</p>
<h2>What Neuralink is bringing to the table</h2>
<p>Elon Musk founded Neuralink in 2017, aiming to address these challenges and <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/27/15077864/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-computer-interface-ai-cyborgs">raise the bar</a> for implanted neural interfaces.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most impressive aspect of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1101/703801">Neuralink’s system</a> is the breadth and depth of their approach. Building a BMI is inherently interdisciplinary, requiring expertise in electrode design and microfabrication, implantable materials, surgical methods, electronics, packaging, neuroscience, algorithms, medicine, regulatory issues and more. Neuralink has created a team that spans most, if not all, <a href="https://jobs.lever.co/neuralink">of these areas</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284829/original/file-20190718-116586-1u3ltol.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284829/original/file-20190718-116586-1u3ltol.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284829/original/file-20190718-116586-1u3ltol.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284829/original/file-20190718-116586-1u3ltol.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284829/original/file-20190718-116586-1u3ltol.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284829/original/file-20190718-116586-1u3ltol.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=656&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284829/original/file-20190718-116586-1u3ltol.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=656&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284829/original/file-20190718-116586-1u3ltol.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=656&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The size of the threads, attached to a fingertip for scale.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20697123/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-reading-thread-robot">Neuralink</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With all of this expertise, Neuralink is undoubtedly moving the field forward, and improving their technology rapidly. Individually, many of the components of their system represent significant progress along predictable paths. For example, their electrodes, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20697123/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-reading-thread-robot">that they call threads</a>, are very small and flexible; <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-015-1430-4">many researchers</a> have tried to harness those properties to minimize the chance the brain’s immune response would reject the electrodes after insertion. Neuralink has also developed high-performance miniature electronics – another focus area for labs working on BMIs.</p>
<p>Often overlooked in academic settings, however, is how an entire system would be efficiently implanted in a brain.</p>
<p>Neuralink’s BMI requires brain surgery. This is because implanted electrodes that are in intimate contact with neurons will always outperform non-invasive electrodes where neurons are far away from the electrodes sitting outside the skull. So, a critical question becomes how to minimize the surgical challenges around getting the device into a brain.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355390/original/file-20200829-16-1gmglou.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a machine with a helmet-like component in a laboratory" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355390/original/file-20200829-16-1gmglou.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355390/original/file-20200829-16-1gmglou.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=700&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355390/original/file-20200829-16-1gmglou.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=700&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355390/original/file-20200829-16-1gmglou.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=700&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355390/original/file-20200829-16-1gmglou.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355390/original/file-20200829-16-1gmglou.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/355390/original/file-20200829-16-1gmglou.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The upgrade of Neuralink’s ‘sewing machine’ surgical robot for embedding electrode ‘threads’ in a brain.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Courtesy of Woke Studio</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Maybe the most impressive aspect of Neuralink’s announcement was that they created a 3,000-electrode neural interface where electrodes could be implanted at a rate of between 30 and 200 per minute. Each thread of electrodes is implanted by a sophisticated surgical robot that essentially acts like a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1101/578542">sewing machine</a>. This all happens while specifically avoiding blood vessels that blanket the surface of the brain. The robotics and imaging that enable this feat, with tight integration to the entire device, is striking. </p>
<p>Neuralink has thought through the challenge of developing a clinically viable BMI from beginning to end in a way that few groups have done, though they acknowledge that many challenges remain as they work towards getting this technology into human patients in the clinic.</p>
<h2>Figuring out what more electrodes gets you</h2>
<p>The quest for implantable devices with thousands of electrodes is not only the domain of private companies. <a href="https://www.darpa.mil/program/our-research/darpa-and-the-brain-initiative">DARPA</a>, the <a href="https://braininitiative.nih.gov">NIH BRAIN Initiative</a> and <a href="https://www.neuropixels.org/about">international consortiums</a> are working on neurotechnologies for recording and stimulating in the brain with goals of tens of thousands of electrodes. But what might scientists do with the information from 1,000, 3,000 or maybe even 100,000 neurons?</p>
<p>At some level, devices with more electrodes might not actually be necessary to have a meaningful impact in people’s lives. Effective control of computers for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204566">access</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18554">communication</a>, of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61816-9">robotic</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11076">limbs</a> to grasp and move objects as well as of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.07.445">paralyzed</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30601-3">muscles</a> is already happening – in people. And it has been for a number of years.</p>
<p>Since the 1990s, the <a href="https://blackrockmicro.com/electrode-main/">Utah Array</a>, which has just 100 electrodes and is manufactured by <a href="https://blackrockmicro.com">Blackrock Microsystems</a>, has been a critical device in neuroscience and clinical research. This electrode array is FDA-cleared for temporary neural recording. Several research groups, including our own, have implanted Utah Arrays in people that lasted <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/025027">multiple years</a>.</p>
<p>Currently, the biggest constraints are related to connectors, electronics and system-level engineering, not the implanted electrode itself — although increasing the electrodes’ lifespan to more than five years would represent a significant advance. As those technical capabilities improve, it might turn out that the ability to accurately control computers and robots is limited more by scientists’ understanding of what the neurons are saying – that is, the neural code – than by the number of electrodes on the device.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284844/original/file-20190718-116539-1nj1ssy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284844/original/file-20190718-116539-1nj1ssy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/284844/original/file-20190718-116539-1nj1ssy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284844/original/file-20190718-116539-1nj1ssy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284844/original/file-20190718-116539-1nj1ssy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284844/original/file-20190718-116539-1nj1ssy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284844/original/file-20190718-116539-1nj1ssy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/284844/original/file-20190718-116539-1nj1ssy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Brain-machine interfaces can transform brain signals into commands for robotic arms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">UPMC/Pitt Health Sciences</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even the most capable implanted system, and maybe the most capable devices researchers can reasonably imagine, might fall short of the goal of actually augmenting skilled human performance. Nevertheless, Neuralink’s goal of creating better BMIs has the potential to improve the lives of people who can’t move or are unable to communicate. Right now, Musk’s vision of using BMIs to <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/7/17/20697812/elon-musk-neuralink-ai-brain-implant-thread-robot">meld physical brains and intelligence with artificial ones</a> is no more than a dream.</p>
<p>So, what does the future look like for Neuralink and other groups creating implantable BMIs? Devices with more electrodes that last longer and are connected to smaller and more powerful wireless electronics are essential. Better devices themselves, however, are insufficient. Continued public and private investment in companies and academic research labs, as well as innovative ways for these groups to work together to share technologies and data, will be necessary to truly advance scientists’ understanding of the brain and deliver on the promise of BMIs to improve people’s lives.</p>
<p>While researchers need to keep the future societal implications of advanced neurotechnologies in mind – there’s an essential <a href="https://braininitiative.nih.gov/about/neuroethics-working-group">role for ethicists</a> and <a href="https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/implanted-brain-computer-interface-bci-devices-patients-paralysis-or-amputation-non-clinical-testing">regulation</a> – BMIs could be truly transformative as they help more people overcome limitations caused by injury or disease in the brain and body.</p>
<p><em>This story was updated on August 31, 2020 to include the company’s pig demonstration and upgraded surgical robot.</em></p>
<p>[ <em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120562/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Gaunt receives funding from from the National Institutes of Health, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Craig H. Neilsen Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Collinger receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs and has previously been funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.</span></em></p>BMIs like the ones Neuralink is working on are already used in laboratories around the world as assistive technologies. But melding your mind with an AI is probably not happening anytime soon.Robert Gaunt, Assistant Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of PittsburghJennifer Collinger, Assistant Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of PittsburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/847832017-10-06T13:52:50Z2017-10-06T13:52:50ZSometimes one head is better than two when it comes to decisions – here’s the science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189027/original/file-20171005-9753-1m4ej2l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are two heads better than one?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/trader-gesturing-stock-exchange-207769276?src=1Ur2M4Hz3e62GqquSwvreA-1-23">Dragon Images/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Decision making is an integral part of our everyday life. When it comes to important decisions, we generally want to work with others – assuming that groups are better than individuals. This has, after all, been shown to be the case in both <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/aug/07/highereducation.news2">humans</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-animals-vote-to-make-group-decisions-84134">animals</a>. Committees, panels and juries usually achieve this “<a href="http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140708-when-crowd-wisdom-goes-wrong">wisdom of crowds</a>” by sharing individual opinions and views – discussing them within the group until there is consensus.</p>
<p>But two heads are not always better than one. The presence of an overly dominant leader, time constraints and social dynamics could <a href="http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/4/8/170193">dissipate the advantages of groups</a>. In a recent study, published in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08265-7">Scientific Reports</a>, we investigated the best conditions for making decisions when circumstances are uncertain. In other words, if we are not able to make a fully informed decision, are we better off alone or in groups?</p>
<p>In presence of uncertainty, the information coming from the senses is generally not sufficient to make accurate decisions. Also, in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.003">perceptual decisions</a>, such as looking for a particular object in an image, reasoning does not help. In such circumstances, the best decisions are generally those made using <a href="https://theconversation.com/too-much-information-how-a-data-deluge-leaves-us-struggling-to-make-up-our-minds-44674">gut feeling</a>. However, research suggests that discussing your decision with others <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/360.full">should enhance your performance</a>.</p>
<p>In our experiments, we showed participants a sequence of images of Arctic environments with a crowd of penguins and, possibly, a polar bear. The images were manipulated as these two species <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150902-the-truth-about-polar-bears">live at opposite poles</a>. After each image, participants had to decide, as quickly as possible, whether there was a polar bear in the picture. Each image was shown for a quarter of a second, hence making the task quite difficult for an individual – see the animation below.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5oQHtf8UDNU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Is there a polar bear? (Hint: yes).</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We recruited 34 participants and split them into three sets. In sets A and B (10 participants each), people performed the experiment in isolation with no interaction with each other. After each decision, participants of set B also indicated how confident they were in that decision. Since all participants were seeing the same images, we then studied the performance of possible pairs and groups that we could form by aggregating their responses.</p>
<p>In set C, we formed seven pairs randomly and put each participant in a separate room. We allowed each pair to exchange information during the experiment. One member of each pair made two decisions: one based on the sole perceptual information (dubbed first response) and one taking also into account the first response of the other member and his or her degree of confidence (second response).</p>
<p>When pairing isolated participants (sets A and B) by simply adding their responses together, the wisdom of crowds made a difference: pairs were more accurate than individuals. If the pair did not agree on a decision, we used the decision of the most confident member. However, surprisingly, communicating participants of set C made 50% more errors than the isolated participants of sets A and B. In other words, having people working together as opposed to alone doing the same task does not improve the performance: it makes it worse.</p>
<p>Group communication not only increased the number of erroneous decisions made by people., it also made participants unable to correctly assess their decision confidence. We know that people feeling very confident about a decision are more likely to be correct than people feeling less confident. While this was true for set B, in set C the decision confidence did not correlate withwhether or not the answer was correct.</p>
<p>What happened in the experiment was that overconfident (but inaccurate) people convinced less confident (but accurate) people to change their opinions towards the wrong decision. Hence, asking communicating participants to report their degree of confidence after each decision is risky.</p>
<h2>Reading the unconscious mind</h2>
<p>In the study, we also looked at the brain activity of the different decision makers using electroencephalography (EEG), which uses electrodes placed on the scalp to track and record brain waves. The aim was to find patterns to assess the quality of a decision without asking the participants how confident they were. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189013/original/file-20171005-9757-fc1kc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189013/original/file-20171005-9757-fc1kc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189013/original/file-20171005-9757-fc1kc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189013/original/file-20171005-9757-fc1kc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189013/original/file-20171005-9757-fc1kc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189013/original/file-20171005-9757-fc1kc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189013/original/file-20171005-9757-fc1kc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One head is better than two when it comes to making decisions about images.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/safety-private-property-modern-technology-safeguard-574454911?src=DHnOnRJVlS7vm2o5Gugu9g-1-5">By Africa Studio/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We found that the intensity of the brain waves in specific regions of the brain reflected the decision confidence of the user. We then developed a brain-computer interface (BCI) (a computer directly connected to the EEG) to predict the decision confidence of each participant using their brain signals and the response time via machine-learning algorithms. Our interface was designed to tap into the unconscious mind and capture evidence of the decision confidence before other reasoning comes into play. </p>
<p>When using our BCI, participants did not receive any feedback related to their level of confidence. In this way, we could establish who should be trusted more on each decision on the basis of brain activity only – something that helped us improve the accuracy of pair and group decisions when adding up the answers afterwards.</p>
<p>Our results suggest that two minds are better than one during uncertainty only if people do not exchange information. Also, the optimal group decisions can be made using our BCI to establish which group members should be trusted more according to their brain signals. </p>
<p>This could help a variety of workplaces to improve decision making. To achieve the maximum performance, we would need several isolated users equipped with BCI. This is particularly valid for scenarios where erroneous decisions might have serious consequences. For example, in surveillance, where police officers monitor security cameras to identify threats on a scene. Or in finance, to allow brokers to make better decisions and save money. Similarly, in healthcare, radiologists could be assisted by our BCI to make better diagnosis over X-ray images. This, in turn, could actually help save lives.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84783/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Davide Valeriani receives funding from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and by EPSRC as part of the MURI programme (grant EP/P009204/1).</span></em></p>Stockbrokers, police officers and radiologists are among those that may benefit from new research findings on how to make decisions under uncertainty.Davide Valeriani, Post-doctoral Researcher in Brain-Computer Interfaces and Co-Founder of EyeWink Ltd., University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/777592017-06-14T02:23:03Z2017-06-14T02:23:03ZHelping or hacking? Engineers and ethicists must work together on brain-computer interface technology<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173203/original/file-20170609-4841-73vkw2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A subject plays a computer game as part of a neural security experiment at the University of Washington.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Patrick Bennett</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the 1995 film <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112462/">“Batman Forever</a>,” the Riddler used 3-D television to secretly access viewers’ most personal thoughts in his hunt for Batman’s true identity. By 2011, the metrics company <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2011/nielsen-acquires-neurofocus.html">Nielsen had acquired Neurofocus</a> and had created a “consumer neuroscience” division that uses <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/solutions/capabilities/consumer-neuroscience.html">integrated conscious and unconscious data</a> to track customer decision-making habits. What was once a nefarious scheme in a Hollywood blockbuster seems poised to become a reality.</p>
<p>Recent announcements <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/27/15077864/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-computer-interface-ai-cyborgs">by Elon Musk</a> <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/19/facebook-brain-interface/">and Facebook</a> about <a href="https://theconversation.com/melding-mind-and-machine-how-close-are-we-75589">brain-computer interface (BCI) technology</a> are just the latest headlines in an ongoing science-fiction-becomes-reality story.</p>
<p>BCIs use brain signals to control objects in the outside world. They’re a potentially world-changing innovation – imagine being paralyzed but able to “reach” for something with a prosthetic arm <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/12/21/jan_scheuermann_footage_of_paralyzed_woman_eating_chocolate_with_robotic.html">just by thinking about it</a>. But the revolutionary technology also raises concerns. Here at the University of Washington’s Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (<a href="http://www.csne-erc.org/">CSNE</a>) we and our colleagues are researching BCI technology – and a crucial part of that includes working on issues such as neuroethics and neural security. Ethicists and engineers are working together to understand and quantify risks and develop ways to protect the public now. </p>
<h2>Picking up on P300 signals</h2>
<p>All BCI technology relies on being able to collect information from a brain that a device can then use or act on in some way. There are numerous places from which signals can be recorded, as well as infinite ways the data can be analyzed, so there are many possibilities for how a BCI can be used.</p>
<p>Some BCI researchers zero in on one particular kind of regularly occurring brain signal that alerts us to important changes in our environment. Neuroscientists call these signals “<a href="https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-6748.57865">event-related potentials</a>.” In the lab, they help us identify a reaction to a stimulus.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172819/original/file-20170607-29557-1ggtcor.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172819/original/file-20170607-29557-1ggtcor.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172819/original/file-20170607-29557-1ggtcor.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172819/original/file-20170607-29557-1ggtcor.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172819/original/file-20170607-29557-1ggtcor.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172819/original/file-20170607-29557-1ggtcor.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172819/original/file-20170607-29557-1ggtcor.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172819/original/file-20170607-29557-1ggtcor.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Examples of event-related potentials (ERPs), electrical signals produced by the brain in response to a stimulus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tamara Bonaci</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In particular, we capitalize on one of these specific signals, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715154/">called the P300</a>. It’s a positive peak of electricity that occurs toward the back of the head about 300 milliseconds after the stimulus is shown. The P300 alerts the rest of your brain to an “oddball” that stands out from the rest of what’s around you.</p>
<p>For example, you don’t stop and stare at each person’s face when you’re searching for your friend at the park. Instead, if we were recording your brain signals as you scanned the crowd, there would be a detectable P300 response when you saw someone who could be your friend. The P300 carries an unconscious message alerting you to something important that deserves attention. These signals are part of a still unknown brain pathway that aids in detection and focusing attention.</p>
<h2>Reading your mind using P300s</h2>
<p>P300s reliably occur any time you notice something rare or disjointed, like when you find the shirt you were looking for in your closet or your car in a parking lot. Researchers can use the P300 in an experimental setting to determine what is important or relevant to you. That’s led to the creation of devices like spellers that allow paralyzed individuals to type using their thoughts, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(88)90149-6">one character at a time</a>.</p>
<p>It also can be used to determine what you know, in what’s called a “<a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00207458808985770">guilty knowledge test</a>.” In the lab, subjects are asked to choose an item to “steal” or hide, and are then shown many images repeatedly of both unrelated and related items. For instance, subjects choose between a watch and a necklace, and are then shown typical items from a jewelry box; a P300 appears when the subject is presented with the image of the item he took.</p>
<p>Everyone’s P300 is unique. In order to know what they’re looking for, researchers need “training” data. These are previously obtained brain signal recordings that researchers are confident contain P300s; they’re then used to calibrate the system. Since the test measures an unconscious neural signal that you don’t even know you have, can you fool it? Maybe, if you <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00158.x">know that you’re being probed and what the stimuli are</a>.</p>
<p>Techniques like these are still considered unreliable and unproven, and thus U.S. courts have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2007.58.4.460">resisted admitting P300 data as evidence</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172821/original/file-20170607-25764-pbljrg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172821/original/file-20170607-25764-pbljrg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172821/original/file-20170607-25764-pbljrg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172821/original/file-20170607-25764-pbljrg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172821/original/file-20170607-25764-pbljrg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172821/original/file-20170607-25764-pbljrg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172821/original/file-20170607-25764-pbljrg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172821/original/file-20170607-25764-pbljrg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">For now, most BCI technology relies on somewhat cumbersome EEG hardware that is definitely not stealth.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Stone, University of Washington</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Imagine that instead of using a P300 signal to solve the mystery of a “stolen” item in the lab, someone used this technology to extract information about what month you were born or which bank you use – without your telling them. Our research group has <a href="https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/33808">collected data suggesting this is possible</a>. Just using an individual’s brain activity – specifically, their P300 response – we could determine a subject’s preferences for things like favorite coffee brand or favorite sports.</p>
<p>But we could do it only when subject-specific training data were available. What if we could figure out someone’s preferences without previous knowledge of their brain signal patterns? Without the need for training, users could simply put on a device and go, skipping the step of loading a personal training profile or spending time in calibration. Research on trained and untrained devices is the subject of <a href="http://brl.ee.washington.edu/neural-engineering/bci-security/">continuing experiments at the University of Washington</a> <a href="https://perso.uclouvain.be/fstandae/PUBLIS/190.pdf">and elsewhere</a>. </p>
<p>It’s when the technology is able to “read” someone’s mind who isn’t actively cooperating that ethical issues become particularly pressing. After all, we willingly trade bits of our privacy all the time – when we open our mouths to have conversations or use GPS devices that allow companies to collect data about us. But in these cases we consent to sharing what’s in our minds. The difference with next-generation P300 technology under development is that the protection consent gives us may get bypassed altogether.</p>
<p>What if it’s possible to decode what you’re thinking or planning without you even knowing? Will you feel violated? Will you feel a loss of control? Privacy implications may be wide-ranging. Maybe advertisers could know your preferred brands and send you personalized ads – which may be convenient or creepy. Or maybe malicious entities could determine where you bank and your account’s PIN – which would be alarming. </p>
<h2>With great power comes great responsibility</h2>
<p>The potential ability to determine individuals’ preferences and personal information using their own brain signals has spawned a number of difficult but pressing questions: Should we be able to keep our neural signals private? That is, should neural security <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1">be a human right</a>? How do we <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2427564">adequately protect and store all the neural data</a> being recorded for research, and soon for leisure? How do consumers know if any protective or anonymization measures are being made with their neural data? As of now, neural data collected for commercial uses are not subject to the same legal protections covering <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/index.html">biomedical research or health care</a>. Should neural data be treated differently?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172822/original/file-20170607-25764-qhx5o4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172822/original/file-20170607-25764-qhx5o4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172822/original/file-20170607-25764-qhx5o4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172822/original/file-20170607-25764-qhx5o4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172822/original/file-20170607-25764-qhx5o4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172822/original/file-20170607-25764-qhx5o4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172822/original/file-20170607-25764-qhx5o4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172822/original/file-20170607-25764-qhx5o4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Neuroethicists from the UW Philosophy department discuss issues related to neural implants.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Stone, University of Washington</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These are the kinds of conundrums that are best addressed by neural engineers and ethicists working together. Putting ethicists in labs alongside engineers – <a href="http://www.csne-erc.org/research/neuroethics">as we have done at the CSNE</a> – is one way to ensure that privacy and security risks of neurotechnology, as well as other ethically important issues, are an active part of the research process instead of an afterthought. For instance, Tim Brown, an ethicist at the CSNE, is “housed” within a neural engineering research lab, allowing him to have daily conversations with researchers about ethical concerns. He’s also easily able to interact with – and, in fact, interview – research subjects about their <a href="http://www.csne-erc.org/engage-enable/post/ethics-cornerstone-neural-engineering-research">ethical concerns about brain research</a>. </p>
<p>There are important ethical and legal lessons to be drawn about technology and privacy from other areas, such as <a href="https://www.genome.gov/27561246/privacy-in-genomics">genetics</a> and <a href="http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2011/08/ethical-dimenstions-of-neuromarketing.html">neuromarketing</a>. But there seems to be something important and different about reading neural data. They’re more intimately connected to the mind and who we take ourselves to be. As such, ethical issues raised by BCI demand special attention.</p>
<h2>Working on ethics while tech’s in its infancy</h2>
<p>As we wrestle with how to address these privacy and security issues, there are two features of current P300 technology that will buy us time.</p>
<p>First, most commercial devices available use dry electrodes, which rely solely on skin contact to conduct electrical signals. This technology is prone to a low signal-to-noise ratio, meaning that we can extract only relatively basic forms of information from users. The brain signals we record are known to be highly variable (even for the same person) due to things like electrode movement and the constantly changing nature of brain signals themselves. Second, electrodes are not always in ideal locations to record.</p>
<p>All together, this inherent lack of reliability means that BCI devices are not nearly as ubiquitous today as they may be in the future. As electrode hardware and signal processing continue to improve, it will be easier to continuously use devices like these, and make it easier to extract personal information from an unknowing individual as well. The safest advice would be to not use these devices at all.</p>
<p>The goal should be that the ethical standards and the technology will mature together to ensure future BCI users are confident their privacy is being protected as they use these kinds of devices. It’s a rare opportunity for scientists, engineers, ethicists and eventually regulators to work together to create even better products than were originally dreamed of in science fiction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77759/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eran Klein a member of the Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE) at the University of Washington which receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine Pratt works for the Electrical Engineering department at the University of Washington in Seattle, and is affiliated with the Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE). Katherine Pratt receives funding from the National Science Foundation and Technology Policy Lab, and has also previously received support from Google. The CSNE partners with the companies listed at <a href="http://csne-erc.org/content/current-members">http://csne-erc.org/content/current-members</a></span></em></p>BCI devices that read minds and act on intentions can change lives for the better. But they could also be put to nefarious use in the not-too-distant future. Now’s the time to think about risks.Eran Klein, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Neurology at Oregon Health and Sciences University and Affiliate Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of WashingtonKatherine Pratt, Ph.D. Student in Electrical Engineering, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/755892017-04-10T00:36:35Z2017-04-10T00:36:35ZMelding mind and machine: How close are we?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164560/original/image-20170408-2918-1u1y3bz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C121%2C1078%2C770&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A noninvasive brain-computer interface based on EEG recordings from the scalp.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE), Photo by Mark Stone</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Just as ancient Greeks fantasized about soaring flight, today’s imaginations dream of melding minds and machines as a remedy to the pesky problem of human mortality. Can the mind connect directly with artificial intelligence, robots and other minds through <a href="http://bci.cs.washington.edu/">brain-computer interface (BCI) technologies</a> to transcend our human limitations?</p>
<p>Over the last 50 years, researchers at university labs and companies around the world have made impressive progress toward achieving such a vision. Recently, successful entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk (<a href="https://www.neuralink.com/">Neuralink</a>) and Bryan Johnson (<a href="http://kernel.co/">Kernel</a>) have announced new startups that seek to enhance human capabilities through brain-computer interfacing.</p>
<p>How close are we really to successfully connecting our brains to our technologies? And what might the implications be when our minds are plugged in?</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7t84lGE5TXA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">How do brain-computer interfaces work and what can they do?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Origins: Rehabilitation and restoration</h2>
<p>Eb Fetz, a researcher here at the <a href="http://www.csne-erc.org/">Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE)</a>, is one of the earliest pioneers to connect machines to minds. In 1969, before there were even personal computers, he showed that monkeys can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.163.3870.955">amplify their brain signals to control a needle</a> that moved on a dial.</p>
<p>Much of the recent work on BCIs aims to improve the quality of life of people who are paralyzed or have severe motor disabilities. You may have seen some recent accomplishments in the news: University of Pittsburgh researchers use signals recorded inside the brain to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76lIQtE8oDY">control a robotic arm</a>. Stanford researchers can extract the movement intentions of paralyzed patients from their brain signals, allowing them <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oka8hqsOzg">to use a tablet wirelessly</a>.</p>
<p>Similarly, some limited virtual sensations can be sent back to the brain, by delivering electrical current <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf8083">inside the brain</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2016.2591952">to the brain surface</a>.</p>
<p>What about our main senses of sight and sound? <a href="http://www.secondsight.com/how-is-argus-r-ii-designed-to-produce-sight-en.html">Very early versions of bionic eyes</a> for people with severe vision impairment have been deployed commercially, and improved versions are undergoing <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uRuIr35C5Y">human trials right now</a>. Cochlear implants, on the other hand, have become one of the most successful and most prevalent bionic implants – over <a href="https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/cochlear-implants">300,000 users around the world</a> use the implants to hear.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164550/original/image-20170408-29365-148t6y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164550/original/image-20170408-29365-148t6y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164550/original/image-20170408-29365-148t6y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164550/original/image-20170408-29365-148t6y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164550/original/image-20170408-29365-148t6y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164550/original/image-20170408-29365-148t6y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164550/original/image-20170408-29365-148t6y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164550/original/image-20170408-29365-148t6y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A bidirectional brain-computer interface (BBCI) can both record signals from the brain and send information back to the brain through stimulation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The most sophisticated BCIs are “bi-directional” BCIs (BBCIs), which can both record from and stimulate the nervous system. At our center, we’re exploring BBCIs as a radical new rehabilitation tool for stroke and spinal cord injury. We’ve shown that a BBCI can be used to strengthen connections <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05226">between two brain regions</a> or <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.08.028">between the brain and the spinal cord</a>, and reroute information around an area of injury to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07418">reanimate a paralyzed limb</a>.</p>
<p>With all these successes to date, you might think a brain-computer interface is poised to be the next must-have consumer gadget.</p>
<h2>Still early days</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164517/original/image-20170407-3845-46uqbb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164517/original/image-20170407-3845-46uqbb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164517/original/image-20170407-3845-46uqbb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164517/original/image-20170407-3845-46uqbb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164517/original/image-20170407-3845-46uqbb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164517/original/image-20170407-3845-46uqbb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164517/original/image-20170407-3845-46uqbb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164517/original/image-20170407-3845-46uqbb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An electrocorticography grid, used for detecting electrical changes on the surface of the brain, is being tested for electrical characteristics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But a careful look at some of the current BCI demonstrations reveals we still have a way to go: When BCIs produce movements, they are much slower, less precise and less complex than what able-bodied people do easily every day with their limbs. Bionic eyes offer very low-resolution vision; cochlear implants can electronically carry limited speech information, but distort the experience of music. And to make all these technologies work, electrodes have to be surgically implanted – a prospect most people today wouldn’t consider.</p>
<p>Not all BCIs, however, are invasive. Noninvasive BCIs that don’t require surgery do exist; they are typically based on electrical (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography">EEG</a>) recordings from the scalp and have been used to demonstrate control of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403504101">cursors</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyJj32MsAUo">wheelchairs</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6QEGeIKHw0">robotic arms</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baEYCberLUA">drones</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/5/2/012">humanoid robots</a> and even <a href="http://homes.cs.washington.edu/%7Erao/brain2brain/">brain-to-brain communication</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6l2m-Yz2Y9U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The first demonstration of a noninvasive brain-controlled humanoid robot “avatar” named Morpheus in the Neural Systems Laboratory at the University of Washington in 2006. This noninvasive BCI infers what object the robot should pick and where to bring it based on the brain’s reflexive response when an image of the desired object or location is flashed.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But all these demos have been in the laboratory – where the rooms are quiet, the test subjects aren’t distracted, the technical setup is long and methodical, and experiments last only long enough to show that a concept is possible. It’s proved very difficult to make these systems fast and robust enough to be of practical use in the real world.</p>
<p>Even with implanted electrodes, another problem with trying to read minds arises from how our brains are structured. We know that each neuron and their thousands of connected neighbors form an <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1238411">unimaginably large and ever-changing network</a>. What might this mean for neuroengineers? </p>
<p>Imagine you’re trying to understand a conversation between a big group of friends about a complicated subject, but you’re allowed to listen to only a single person. You might be able to figure out the very rough topic of what the conversation is about, but definitely not all the details and nuances of the entire discussion. Because even our best implants only allow us to listen to a few small patches of the brain at a time, we can do some impressive things, but we’re nowhere near understanding the full conversation.</p>
<p>There is also what we think of as a language barrier. Neurons communicate with each other through a complex interaction of electrical signals and chemical reactions. This native electro-chemical language can be interpreted with electrical circuits, but it’s not easy. Similarly, when we speak back to the brain using electrical stimulation, it is with a heavy electrical “accent.” This makes it <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2631">difficult for neurons to understand what the stimulation is trying to convey</a> in the midst of all the other ongoing neural activity.</p>
<p>Finally, there is the problem of damage. Brain tissue is soft and flexible, while most of our electrically conductive materials – the wires that connect to brain tissue – tend to be very rigid. This means that implanted electronics <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2005.08.015">often cause scarring and immune reactions</a> that mean the implants lose effectiveness over time. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3093">Flexible biocompatible fibers</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40332">arrays</a> may eventually help in this regard.</p>
<h2>Co-adapting, cohabiting</h2>
<p>Despite all these challenges, we’re optimistic about our bionic future. BCIs don’t have to be perfect. The brain is amazingly adaptive and capable of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221127110">learning to use BCIs in a manner similar to how we learn new skills</a> like driving a car or using a touchscreen interface. Similarly, the brain can learn to interpret new types of sensory information <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00072">even when it’s delivered noninvasively</a> using, for example, magnetic pulses. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ru7HRkFNM7w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Learning to interpret and use artificial sensory information delivered via noninvasive brain stimulation.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ultimately, we believe a “co-adaptive” bidirectional BCI, where the electronics learns with the brain and talks back to the brain constantly during the process of learning, may prove to be a necessary step to build the neural bridge. Building such co-adaptive bidirectional BCIs is the goal of our center.</p>
<p>We are similarly excited about recent successes in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/496159a">targeted treatment of diseases like diabetes using “electroceuticals”</a> – experimental small implants that treat a disease without drugs by communicating commands directly to internal organs.</p>
<p>And researchers have discovered new ways of overcoming the electrical-to-biochemical language barrier. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.115">Injectible “neural lace,”</a> for example, may prove to be a promising way to gradually allow neurons to grow alongside implanted electrodes rather than rejecting them. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600955">Flexible nanowire-based probes</a>, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.11.063">flexible neuron scaffolds</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40332">glassy carbon interfaces</a> may also allow biological and technological computers to happily coexist in our bodies in the future.</p>
<h2>From assistive to augmentative</h2>
<p>Elon Musk’s new startup Neuralink has the stated <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/27/15077864/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-computer-interface-ai-cyborgs">ultimate goal of enhancing humans with BCIs</a> to give our brains a leg up in the ongoing arms race between human and artificial intelligence. He hopes that with the ability to connect to our technologies, the human brain could enhance its own capabilities – possibly allowing us to avoid a potential dystopian future where AI has far surpassed natural human capabilities. Such a vision certainly may seem far-off or fanciful, but we shouldn’t dismiss an idea on strangeness alone. After all, self-driving cars were relegated to the realm of science fiction even a decade and a half ago – and now share our roads.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164516/original/image-20170407-29365-1pgv1nt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164516/original/image-20170407-29365-1pgv1nt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164516/original/image-20170407-29365-1pgv1nt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164516/original/image-20170407-29365-1pgv1nt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164516/original/image-20170407-29365-1pgv1nt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164516/original/image-20170407-29365-1pgv1nt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164516/original/image-20170407-29365-1pgv1nt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164516/original/image-20170407-29365-1pgv1nt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A BCI can vary along multiple dimensions: whether it interfaces with the peripheral nervous system (a nerve) or the central nervous system (the brain), whether it is invasive or noninvasive and whether it helps restore lost function or enhances capabilities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3D_coordinate_system.svg">James Wu; adapted from Sakurambo</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a closer future, as brain-computer interfaces move beyond restoring function in disabled people to augmenting able-bodied individuals beyond their human capacity, we need to be acutely aware of a host of issues related to consent, privacy, identity, agency and inequality. At our center, <a href="http://www.csne-erc.org/research/neuroethics">a team of philosophers, clinicians and engineers</a> is working actively to address these ethical, moral and social justice issues and offer neuroethical guidelines before the field progresses too far ahead.</p>
<p>Connecting our brains directly to technology may ultimately be a natural progression of how humans have augmented themselves with technology over the ages, from using wheels to overcome our bipedal limitations to making notations on clay tablets and paper to augment our memories. Much like the computers, smartphones and virtual reality headsets of today, augmentative BCIs, when they finally arrive on the consumer market, will be exhilarating, frustrating, risky and, at the same time, full of promise.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75589/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Wu works for the Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE) and the University of Washington in Seattle. James Wu receives funding from the National Science Foundation, and has also previously received support from the Washington Research Foundation. The CSNE partners with the companies listed at <a href="http://csne-erc.org/content/current-members">http://csne-erc.org/content/current-members</a>. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rajesh P. N. Rao works for the Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE) and the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington, Seattle. He consults for the company Neubay, Inc., and his organization, the CSNE, partners with the companies listed at <a href="http://www.csne-erc.org/content/current-members">http://www.csne-erc.org/content/current-members</a>. Rajesh Rao receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the National Institutes of Health, and the Keck Foundation. </span></em></p>Brain-computer interfacing is a hot topic in the tech world, with Elon Musk’s announcement of his new Neuralink startup. Here, researchers separate what’s science from what’s currently still fiction.James Wu, Ph.D. Student in Bioengineering, Researcher at the Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering, University of WashingtonRajesh P. N. Rao, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering and Director of the Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering , University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.