Interfacing with the Brain: How Nanotechnology Can Contribute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interfacing artificial devices with the human brain is the central goal of neurotechnology. Yet, our imaginations are often limited by currently available paradigms and technologies. Suggestions for brain-machine interfaces have changed over time, along with the available technology. Mechanical levers and cable winches were used to move parts of the brain during the mechanical age. Sophisticated electronic wiring and remote control have arisen during the electronic age, ultimately leading to plug-and-play computer interfaces. Nonetheless, our brains are so complex that these visions, until recently, largely remained unreachable dreams. The general problem, thus far, is that most of our technology is mechanically and/or electrically engineered, whereas the brain is a living, dynamic entity. As a result, these worlds are difficult to interface with one another. Nanotechnology, which encompasses engineered solid-state objects and integrated circuits, excels at small length scales of single to a few hundred nanometers and, thus, matches the sizes of biomolecules, biomolecular assemblies, and parts of cells. Consequently, we envision nanomaterials and nanotools as opportunities to interface with the brain in alternative ways. Here, we review the existing literature on the use of nanotechnology in brain-machine interfaces and look forward in discussing perspectives and limitations based on the authors' expertise across a range of complementary disciplines─from neuroscience, engineering, physics, and chemistry to biology and medicine, computer science and mathematics, and social science and jurisprudence. We focus on nanotechnology but also include information from related fields when useful and complementary.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".