Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural prosthetics are devices or systems that bypass, modulate, supplement, or replace regions of the brain and its connections to the body that are damaged and dysfunctional from congenital abnormalities, brain and spinal cord injuries, limb loss, and neuropsychiatric disorders. Some prosthetics are implanted in the brain. Others consist of implants and systems outside the brain to which they are connected. Still others are completely external to the brain. But they all send inputs to and receive outputs from neural networks to modulate or improve connections between the brain and body. As artificial systems, neural prosthetics can improve but not completely restore natural sensory, motor and cognitive functions. This review examines the main ethical and social issues generated by experimental and therapeutic uses of seven types of neural prosthetics: auditory and visual prosthetics for deafness and blindness; deep brain stimulation for prolonged disorders of consciousness; brain-computer and brain-to-brain interfaces to restore movement and communication; memory prosthetics to encode and retrieve information; and optogenetics to modulate or restore neural function. The review analyzes and discusses how recipients of neural prosthetics can benefit from them in restoring autonomous agency, how they can be harmed by trying and failing to use or adapt to them, how these systems affect their identities, how to protect people with prosthetics from external interference, and how to ensure fair access to them. The review concludes by emphasizing the control these systems provide for people and a brief exploration of the future of neural prosthetics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".