MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390154957 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2023.12.011

Conversion of a medical implant into a versatile computer-brain interface

2023· article· en· W4390154957 on OpenAlexaff
Bálint Várkuti, László Halász, Saman Hagh Gooie, Gabriella Miklós, Ricardo Smits Serena, Gijs van Elswijk, Cameron C. McIntyre, Scott F. Lempka, Andrés M. Lozano, Lóránd Erőss

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterface (matter)Brain–computer interfaceTask (project management)InterfacingComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceComputer hardwarePsychologyElectroencephalographyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Information transmission into the human nervous system is the basis for a variety of prosthetic applications. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems are widely available, have a well documented safety record, can be implanted minimally invasively, and are known to stimulate afferent pathways. Nonetheless, SCS devices are not yet used for computer-brain-interfacing applications. OBJECTIVE: Here we aimed to establish computer-to-brain communication via medical SCS implants in a group of 20 individuals who had been operated for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. METHODS: In the initial phase, we conducted interface calibration with the aim of determining personalized stimulation settings that yielded distinct and reproducible sensations. These settings were subsequently utilized to generate inputs for a range of behavioral tasks. We evaluated the required calibration time, task training duration, and the subsequent performance in each task. RESULTS: We could establish a stable spinal computer-brain interface in 18 of the 20 participants. Each of the 18 then performed one or more of the following tasks: A rhythm-discrimination task (n = 13), a Morse-decoding task (n = 3), and/or two different balance/body-posture tasks (n = 18; n = 5). The median calibration time was 79 min. The median training time for learning to use the interface in a subsequent task was 1:40 min. In each task, every participant demonstrated successful performance, surpassing chance levels. CONCLUSION: The results constitute the first proof-of-concept of a general purpose computer-brain interface paradigm that could be deployed on present-day medical SCS platforms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207