Conversion of a medical implant into a versatile computer-brain interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".