Having brain-reading devices inside the brain to control machines sounds like a concept from a sci-fi book. An article from Nature by Liam Drew (Drew, 2022), discusses such scientific advantages, their evolution until now, as well as how they could change the life of someone who has been left paralyzed. The article talks about a few different research teams that work with brain-computer interface (BCI) technology with hopes of improving the lives of paralyzed people, by helping them move and/or communicate in one way or another. Caltech has one such group of researchers, led by Dr. Andersen, that are working with implanting electrodes into the cortex to record activity of neurons and translate those signals into thoughts/intentions through algorithms. For example, a person with such an implant can control a cursor on a computer screen or control a robotic arm by just using their brain. The technology and the research have evolved quickly and have led to major achievements for the scientific community; the technology has helped patients regain a form of sense of touch, produce speech, and communicate by just thinking of themselves handwriting (Drew, 2022).
The progress of BCIs over the years has been rapid, especially if we think about the fact that the first person to receive such an implant for the long-term did so only in 2004. Since then, the list of the things someone with a BCI can do has gotten longer and the control is more precise and efficient. Dr. Hochberg, from Brown University and the Massachusetts General Hospital, attributes that, not only to the fact that multiple BCIs are now getting implanted in several parts of the brain but also because of “machine learning, which has improved the ability to decode neural activity. Rather than trying to understand what activity patterns mean, machine learning simply identifies and links patterns to a user’s intention” (Drew, 2022). This makes sense if we think about how everything in the brain is connected, works together, and overlaps to result in specific activities. At the same time, it makes activities a lot more natural and the technology easier to use for the participants.
BCIs can greatly improve the quality of life of people with paralysis. The article says, “Asked what they want from assistive neurotechnology, people with paralysis most often answer “independence.” For people who are unable to move their limbs, this typically means restoring movement,” (Drew, 2022). The scientific community believes that BCIs can provide that. Dr. Ajiboye’s team from the Case Western Reserve University work on stimulating the muscles of the patient through electrodes and controlling them through BCIs. With this method, they achieved the movement of previously paralyzed limbs in patients. Dr. Gaunt, along with Dr. Collinger from the University of Pittsburg, accomplished the creation of a prosthetic robotic arm that gives the ability of a form of sense of touch. Dr. Andersen from Caltech is working on “trying to decode users’ more-abstract goals by tapping into the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), which forms the intention or plan to move” (Drew, 2022). As a result, the intended movement becomes much more natural for the person with the implant.
In addition, the technology of BCIs can be life-changing for people who have lost their ability to communicate due to brain injuries. Dr. Chaudhary from the University of Tübingen was able to help a participant who was unable to both speak and move, due to ALS, communicate. The researcher used sound, “that mimicked the man’s brain activity — a higher tone for more activity, lower for less — and taught him to modulate his neural activity to heighten the pitch of a tone to signal ‘yes’ and to lower it for ‘no’” (Drew, 2022).
The road to making such a technology public and commercially used is not short but it is attainable. According to the article, more testing needs to get done on a larger number of participants, research needs to make sure that implants can be used universally with the same benefits across the participants, and manufacturers should be able to make large amounts of reliable/long-lasting BCIs, all while keeping the prices in a range that the market can support. The company Blackrock Neuroteck is on the right track. It produces the implants that have mostly been used in clinical trials and, “wants to market a BCI system within a year…The company came a step closer last November, when the FDA, which regulates medical devices, put the company’s products onto a fast-track review process to review process to fascillitate developing them commercially” (Drew, 2022). The company is also working on wireless implants, as is the company Paradromics. The company Synchron’s wireless implants have also been put on a fast-track review by the FDA, after having achieved successful small-scale trials. Finally, Elon Musk’s Neuralink has also created implants that have only been tested on monkeys. These implants have advantages such that they, “bend with the brain and reduce immune reactions” (Drew, 2022), which could be revolutionary for the field.
The different companies also have different goals in mind. An article from the Insider by Grace Kay (Kay, 2022), gives a bit more insight in the Neuralink company and its goals. From the article, it seems like Elon Musk, the owner of the company, does not necessarily have in mind just people who need the technology because they are paralyzed, but broad use of such technology to connect humans with machines. This is clear by his statement that the Neuralink technology, apart from eventually being able to help people with diseases such as Parkinson's, will also help everyday communication and, “will be the future of phones and smartwatches” (Kay, 2022). This view seems to be quite different from other companies that strictly aim to use BCIs for people who actually need them. The author also brings attention to Elon Musk’s words on the difficulties the company is facing. One of the company’s engineers said, “that the electrodes in the chip were “too small for a human to handle”,” while the owner of the company compared the difficulty of the technology to that of smartwatches. Finally, the article points out that the company has not tested the BCIs in humans and that it aims to do so by the end of 2022.
Another article by Cade Metz (Metz, 2017) in the New York Times, discusses the uses of brain-reading devices in the broad market, apart from just bettering the life quality of people with paralysis. The author describes a game at its prototype stage, called “Awakening,” created by a company called Neurable. The game uses EEG technology to enable the player to navigate through a room they must escape using only their thoughts. The game by Neurable faces limitation problems due to the EEG technology it uses to read brain activity. The article says, “Although (the EEG) sensors can read electrical activity from outside the skull, it is very difficult to separate the signal from the noise” (Metz, 2017). The creator has tried to minimize noise through algorithms that learn from the user’s behavior during a “calibration” stage in the beginning of the game, although that is not always possible to accomplish. Although the game is limited as to what the user can do, it is still one of the first indications that neurotechnology is up and coming, and as Dr. Boyden from the M.I.T. Media Lab states, “Neurotechnology has become cool” (Metz, 2017). Parts of the market are hoping to incorporate in their existing technology brain-reading devices that track chemical changes from outside the skull. Facebook, for example, would like to use such technology to help users type by thinking. On the other hand, neuroscientists are not sure whether something like that could be achieved without implants inside the skull. Furthermore, the article, like the one from Nature and the one from the Insider, also talks about Elon Musk and his ambition to use and implant Neuralink’s devices not only to improve the lives of people with paralysis but also to connect people with no health problems to machines. People from the field have two views on the matter of doing brain surgery to someone who does not need it (aka fully functioning people). Some, believe that it is something that could be done in the future, but we should approach it with caution so that it is incorporated into the market as “a kind of brain augmentation” (Metz, 2017). Others, such as Dr. Angle from the company Paradromics, states that, “In the physical sciences, there are physical boundaries. To think that you will be able to blow through fundamental laws by sheer ambition and enthusiasm is naïve” (Mertz, 2017).
In conclusion, we have talked about how brain-reading devices have evolved over time after a lot of research and funding. We also discussed how the technology from this research can be extremely beneficial to people that are unable to move, or communicate, as it gives them some form of independence by enabling them to do something they could not previously do. In addition, we looked over the different ambitions of different companies regarding brain-reading technologies. Some companies are viewing BCIs as an opportunity to benefit people in need of it, whereas others, like Neuralink, have goals that include the use of the implants to connect people with everyday used electronic devices and machines (aka phones, smartwatches, computers, cars). Finally, we touched on how neurotechnology is something that the market wants and is probably something that will be used more broadly in the future. Despite the enthusiasm and the benefits that come with neurotechnology/BCIs/ brain-reading devices, it is important to think about the ethics behind commercializing such technology. The article from Nature by Liam Drew (Drew, 2022) reminds the reader that the user’s privacy would be compromised, their every thoughts would be attained in the form of data by the companies owning the devices, in addition to the technology being able to get hacked.
Drew, L. (2022, April 20). The brain-reading devices helping paralysed people to move, talk and touch. Nature News. Retrieved May 2, 2022, from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01047-w
Kay, G. (2022, April 25). Elon Musk says Neuralink's brain chip will be 'similar in complexity level to Smart watches'. Business Insider. Retrieved May 2, 2022, from https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-chip-similar-complexity-smartwatch-2022-4
Metz, C. (2017, August 27). A game you can control with your mind. The New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/27/technology/thought-control-virtual-reality.html?searchResultPosition=3
No comments:
Post a Comment