![A seminal paper on brain-computer interfaces was published a little over fifty years ago, in June 1973 [1]. In this paper, Jacques Vidal coined the te](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1200,h_600,c_fill,f_jpg,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa424447f-092c-423e-8599-3e1b025a20b6_1600x1009.png "Neurotech moonshot - by Peter Zhegin and e184 - e184")
Neurotech moonshot - by Peter Zhegin and e184 - e184
A seminal paper on brain-computer interfaces was published a little over fifty years ago, in June 1973 [1]. In this paper, Jacques Vidal coined the term ‘brain-computer interface’ [2] and concluded that ‘... direct brain-computer communication still lies somewhat in the future.’[1]
Having tried a good chunk of existing neurotechnologies on ourselves (tDSC, EEG, MEG, fNIRS, fUS, to name a few) and researched many more, we recognise the astonishing progress in the field: speech and image decoding [11,12], evoking visual sensations [13] for example. But we must admit that Vidal’s future, our present, did not bring direct brain-computer communication. The neurotech field itself remains in its infancy. Its fragmentation and low technology adoption rate indicate how young neurotech is. The most advanced technologies are still confined in laboratories and hospitals and require implantation (see a chart below).
The narrative and language of neurotech remain fragmented. For instance, there are still ongoing debates about the distinction between brain-computer interface and brain-machine interface [14,15] and about terminology around invasivness levels [16]. For example, whether the definition of the brain implant should be based on to what extent ‘... acquired data remains “internalized” to drive tissue stimulation or is extracted to drive an external artefact’ or based on ‘the safety during implantation and operation’ [14].
