Invasive Brain–Computer Interfaces: 25 Years of Clinical Trials, Scientific and Practical Issues

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

A brain-computer interface (BCI) is a system that measures brain activity and converts it in real-time into functionally useful outputs to replace, restore, enhance, supplement, and/or improve the natural outputs of the brain. In invasive BCIs, electrodes are placed intracranially for more accurate and faster data exchange between the brain and external devices. The primary medical objective of these technologies is to compensate for motor or speech function in patients with tetraparesis and anarthria. In recent years, the emergence of new neuroimplants for BCIs and the results demonstrated in clinical trials have led to a notable increase in interest in these systems from the scientific community, investors, and the public. This review compares different types of medical invasive BCIs, analyzes and discusses the achievements and unsolved problems of clinical application of these neurotechnologies, as well as possible consequences and risks of their wider use.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Olesya A. Mokienko

Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the RAS; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov Medical University); Research Center of Neurology

Author for correspondence.
Email: Lesya.md@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7826-5135
SPIN-code: 8088-9921

MD, PhD, Senior Researcher

Россия, Moscow; Moscow; Moscow

References

  1. BCIsociety.org/bci-definition/ [Internet]. BCI Definition. Available from: https://bcisociety.org/bci-definition (accessed: 30.05.2014).
  2. Karikari E, Koshechkin KA. Review on brain–computer interface technologies in healthcare. Biophys Rev. 2023;15(5):1351–1358. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12551-023-01138-6
  3. Mokienko OA, Lyukmanov RKh, Bobrov PD, et al. Brain–computer interfaces for upper limb motor recovery after stroke: current status and development prospects (review). Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine. 2023;15(6):63–74. doi: https://doi.org/10.17691/stm2023.15.6.07
  4. Mokienko OA. Brain–computer interfaces with intracortical implants for motor and communication functions compensation: review of recent developments. Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine. 2024;16(1):78–89. doi: https://doi.org/10.17691/stm2024.16.1.08
  5. Mitchell P, Lee SCM, Yoo PE, et al. Assessment of safety of a fully implanted endovascular brain-computer interface for severe paralysis in 4 patients: the stentrode with thought-controlled digital switch (switch) study. JAMA Neurol. 2023;80(3):270–278. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.4847
  6. Drew L. The rise of brain-reading technology: what you need to know. Nature. 2023;623(7986):241–243. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03423-6
  7. Eisenstein M. Seven technologies to watch in 2024. Nature. 2024;625(7996):844–848. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00173-x
  8. Moses DA, Metzger SL, Liu JR, et al. Neuroprosthesis for decoding speech in a paralyzed person with anarthria. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(3):217–227. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2027540
  9. Wandelt SK, Bjånes DA, Pejsa K, et al. Representation of internal speech by single neurons in human supramarginal gyrus. Nat Hum Behav. 2024;8(6):1136–1149. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01867-y
  10. Willett FR, Avansino DT, Hochberg LR, et al. High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting. Nature. 2021;593(7858):249–254. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03506-2
  11. Wandelt SK, Kellis S, Bjånes DA, et al. Decoding grasp and speech signals from the cortical grasp circuit in a tetraplegic human. Neuron. 2022;110(11):1777–1787.e3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2022.03.009
  12. Bergeron D, Iorio-Morin C, Bonizzato M, et al. Use of invasive brain–computer interfaces in pediatric neurosurgery: technical and ethical considerations. J Child Neurol. 2023;38(3–4):223–238. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/08830738231167736
  13. Zhang Z, Chen Y, Zhao X, et al. [Ethical considerations for medical applications of implantable brain–computer interfaces]. Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi. 2024;41(1):177–183. doi: https://doi.org/10.7507/1001-5515.202309083
  14. Soldado-Magraner J, Antonietti A, French J, et al. Applying the ieee brain neuroethics framework to intra-cortical brain–computer interfaces. J Neural Eng. 2024;21(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ad3852
  15. Valeriani D, Santoro F, Ienca M. The present and future of neural interfaces. Front Neurorobot. 2022;16:953968. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2022.953968
  16. Guenther FH, Brumberg JS, Wright EJ, et al. A wireless brain–machine interface for real-time speech synthesis. PLoS One. 2009;4(12):e8218. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008218
  17. Brumberg JS, Nieto-Castanon A, Kennedy PR, Guenther FH. Brain–computer interfaces for speech communication. Speech Commun. 2010;52(4):367–379. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2010.01.001
  18. Kennedy PR, Kirby MT, Moore MM, et al. Computer control using human intracortical local field potentials. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2004;12(3):339–344. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2004.834629
  19. Kennedy PR, Bakay RA, Moore MM, et al. Direct control of a computer from the human central nervous system. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 2000;8(2):198–202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/86.847815
  20. Flesher SN, Downey JE, Weiss JM, et al. A brain–computer interface that evokes tactile sensations improves robotic arm control. Science. 2021;372(6544):831–836. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd0380
  21. Shah NP, Willsey MS, Hahn N, et al. A brain-computer typing interface using finger movements. Int IEEE EMBS Conf Neural Eng. 2023;2023:10.1109/ner52421.2023.10123912. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ner52421.2023.10123912
  22. Hochberg LR, Serruya MD, Friehs GM, et al. Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature. 2006;442(7099):164–171. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04970
  23. Hochberg LR, Bacher D, Jarosiewicz B, et al. Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature. 2012;485(7398):372–375. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11076
  24. Downey JE, Brane L, Gaunt RA, et al. Motor cortical activity changes during neuroprosthetic-controlled object interaction. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):16947. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17222-3
  25. Aflalo T, Kellis S, Klaes C, et al. Neurophysiology. decoding motor imagery from the posterior parietal cortex of a tetraplegic human. Science. 2015;348(6237):906–910. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa5417
  26. Handelman DA, Osborn LE, Thomas TM, et al. Shared control of bimanual robotic limbs with a brain–machine interface for self-feeding. Front Neurorobot. 2022;16:918001. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2022.918001
  27. Bouton CE, Shaikhouni A, Annetta NV, et al. Restoring cortical control of functional movement in a human with quadriplegia. Nature. 2016;533(7602):247–250. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17435
  28. Ajiboye AB, Willett FR, Young DR, et al. Restoration of reaching and grasping movements through brain-controlled muscle stimulation in a person with tetraplegia: a proof-of-concept demonstration. Lancet. 2017;389(10081):1821–1830. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30601-3
  29. Pandarinath C, Nuyujukian P, Blabe CH, et al. High performance communication by people with paralysis using an intracortical brain–computer interface. Elife. 2017;6:e18554. doi: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18554
  30. Nuyujukian P, Albites Sanabria J, Saab J, et al. Cortical control of a tablet computer by people with paralysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0204566. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204566
  31. Simeral JD, Hosman T, Saab J, et al. Home use of a percutaneous wireless intracortical brain–computer interface by individuals with tetraplegia. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2021;68(7):2313–2325. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2021.3069119
  32. Jarosiewicz B, Sarma AA, Bacher D, et al. Virtual typing by people with tetraplegia using a self-calibrating intracortical brain-computer interface. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(313):313ra179. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aac7328
  33. Bacher D, Jarosiewicz B, Masse NY, et al. Neural point-and-click communication by a person with incomplete locked-in syndrome. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29(5):462–471. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968314554624
  34. Chaudhary U, Vlachos I, Zimmermann JB, et al. Spelling interface using intracortical signals in a completely locked-in patient enabled via auditory neurofeedback training. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):1236. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28859-8
  35. Willett FR, Kunz EM, Fan C, et al. A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis. Nature. 2023;620(7976):1031–1036. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06377-x
  36. Gilja V, Pandarinath C, Blabe CH, et al. Clinical translation of a high-performance neural prosthesis. Nat Med. 2015;21(10):1142–1145. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3953
  37. Collinger JL, Wodlinger B, Downey JE, et al. High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet. 2013;381(9866):557–564. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61816-9
  38. Wodlinger B, Downey JE, Tyler-Kabara EC, et al. Ten-dimensional anthropomorphic arm control in a human brain–machine interface: difficulties, solutions, and limitations. J Neural Eng. 2015;12(1):016011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/12/1/016011
  39. Chadwick EK, Blana D, Simeral JD, et al. Continuous neuronal ensemble control of simulated arm reaching by a human with tetraplegia. J Neural Eng. 2011;8(3):034003. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/8/3/034003
  40. Moly A, Costecalde T, Martel F, et al. An adaptive closed-loop ECoG decoder for long-term and stable bimanual control of an exoskeleton by a tetraplegic. J Neural Eng. 2022;19(2):026021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ac59a0
  41. Wang W, Collinger JL, Degenhart AD, et al. An electrocorticographic brain interface in an individual with tetraplegia. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55344. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055344
  42. Benabid AL, Costecalde T, Eliseyev A, et al. An exoskeleton controlled by an epidural wireless brain–machine interface in a tetraplegic patient: a proof-of-concept demonstration. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(12):1112–1122. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30321-7
  43. Vansteensel MJ, Pels EGM, Bleichner MG, et al. Fully implanted brain–computer interface in a locked-in patient with ALS. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(21):2060–2066. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1608085
  44. Davis KC, Meschede-Krasa B, Cajigas I, et al. Design-development of an at-home modular brain–computer interface (BCI) platform in a case study of cervical spinal cord injury. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022;19(1):53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01026-2
  45. Metzger SL, Littlejohn KT, Silva AB, et al. A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control. Nature. 2023;620(7976):1037–1046. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06443-4
  46. Pels EGM, Aarnoutse EJ, Leinders S, et al. Stability of a chronic implanted brain–computer interface in late-stage amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Clin Neurophysiol. 2019;130(10):1798–1803. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2019.07.020
  47. Cajigas I, Davis KC, Meschede-Krasa B, et al. Implantable brain-computer interface for neuroprosthetic-enabled volitional hand grasp restoration in spinal cord injury. Brain Commun. 2021;3(4):fcab248. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcab248
  48. Angrick M, Luo S, Rabbani Q, et al. Online speech synthesis using a chronically implanted brain-computer interface in an individual with ALS. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):9617. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60277-2
  49. Luo S, Angrick M, Coogan C, et al. Stable decoding from a speech BCI enables control for an individual with ALS without recalibration for 3 months. Adv Sci (Weinh). 2023;10(35):e2304853. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202304853
  50. Oxley TJ, Yoo PE, Rind GS, et al. Motor neuroprosthesis implanted with neurointerventional surgery improves capacity for activities of daily living tasks in severe paralysis: first in-human experience. J Neurointerv Surg. 2021;13(2):102–108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016862
  51. Brannigan JFM, Fry A, Opie NL, et al. Endovascular brain–computer interfaces in poststroke paralysis. Stroke. 2024;55(2):474–483. doi: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.037719
  52. Ho E, Hettick M, Papageorgiou D, et al. The layer 7 cortical interface: a scalable and minimally invasive brain–computer interface platform. bioRxiv. 2022; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.02.474656
  53. Jung T, Zeng N, Fabbri JD, et al. Stable, chronic in-vivo recordings from a fully wireless subdural-contained 65,536-electrode brain–computer interface device. bioRxiv. 2024;2024.05.17.594333. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.17.594333
  54. Donoghue JP, Nurmikko A, Black M, et al. Assistive technology and robotic control using motor cortex ensemble-based neural interface systems in humans with tetraplegia. J Physiol. 2007;579(Pt 3):603–611. doi: https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2006.127209
  55. Rubin DB, Ajiboye AB, Barefoot L, et al. Interim safety profile from the feasibility study of the braingate neural interface system. Neurology. 2023;100(11):e1177–е1192. doi: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000201707
  56. Clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06429735 [Internet]. Study Details. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06429735 (accessed: 30.05.2024).
  57. Rainey S, Maslen H, Savulescu J. When thinking is doing: responsibility for BCI-mediated action. AJOB Neurosci. 2020;11(1):46–58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2019.1704918
  58. Petrosyan A, Voskoboinikov A, Sukhinin D, et al. Speech decoding from a small set of spatially segregated minimally invasive intracranial EEG electrodes with a compact and interpretable neural network. J Neural Eng. 2022;19(6). doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aca1e1
  59. Valle G, Katic Secerovic N, Eggemann D, et al. Biomimetic computer-to-brain communication enhancing naturalistic touch sensations via peripheral nerve stimulation. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):1151. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45190-6
  60. Soghoyan G, Biktimirov A, Matvienko Y, et al. Peripheral nerve stimulation enables somatosensory feedback while suppressing phantom limb pain in transradial amputees. Brain Stimul. 2023;16(3):756–758. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2023.04.017

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. The main types of invasive brain-computer interface implants undergoing clinical trials (schematic)

Download (232KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2025 "Paediatrician" Publishers LLC



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies