Neuralink brain chip implant partially failed after surgery

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 1,054   +317
Staff
Crossed wires: Neuralink has the ambitious goal of creating a novel brain-computer interface by attaching a chip directly to a patient's brain. The first experimental surgery has already occurred, but the implant encountered some "hardware" issues that needed to be addressed through a software approach.

Neuralink Corporation, the controversial neurotechnology company criticized for its questionable medical trials resulting in the death of a significant number of monkeys, achieved its first experimental success earlier this year. Quadriplegic patient Noland Arbaugh underwent Neuralink's initial BCI chip implantation, enabling him to gain the ability to move a cursor on a computer display after suffering full-body paralysis from a driving accident eight years ago.

Despite being hailed as an unprecedented success, Arbaugh's surgery encountered some troubling aftermaths. In a recent post detailing the experimental procedure, Neuralink revealed that several threads within the chip "retracted from the brain" a few weeks after the surgery. Neuralink's BCI boasts 1,024 electrodes connected to 64 threads, which are directly attached to the brain to record neural activity and translate it into motion.

The retracted threads led to a "net decrease" in the number of effective electrodes recording brain signals, as explained by Neuralink. The company addressed the issue by enhancing the recording algorithm's sensitivity to neural signals, eliminating the need for a "hardware" operation on the implant itself.

Neuralink stated that its software engineers have enhanced the translation process to convert these signals into cursor movements, thus improving the device's "user interface" capabilities despite the hardware setback. Thanks to these software refinements, the bits-per-second performance has been boosted, and the patient has even experienced improved performance compared to initial results.

Elon Musk's company is now striving to equip its BCI device with cursor control performance comparable to that of able-bodied individuals. Future enhancements will include a text input feature, followed by the ability to control robotic arms, wheelchairs, and other technologies aimed at enhancing independence for quadriplegic patients.

For now, Neuralink will continue to remotely monitor the behavior of its BCI chip to demonstrate its safety and usefulness in daily life. The company remains committed to providing the 180,000 Americans living with quadriplegia with a high-performance interface to connect with today's digital world.

Permalink to story:

 
This one sounds like a failure that the Govt. should order withdrawn from clinical trials until they get it right, if ever.
 
"in the death of a significant number of monkeys," Monkeys are monkeys. They are here for us. If they help people than fine. I do have sympathy for the monkeys but not enough to stop testing on them.
 
This one sounds like a failure that the Govt. should order withdrawn from clinical trials until they get it right, if ever.
Sounds like someone doesn't like the idea of advancement in health technology.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the history of the pacemaker to realize how idi0tic your gripe sounds. The history of the pacemaker is very interesting and I think most people would actually find it fascinating.
 
Why? You prefer planet of the apes? I’d like to remind you that’s a movie…
To think that other life merely exists for the exploitation of humans is the kind of hubris that not only gets us into environmental issues, but is also one step removed from the exploitation of other people. There's a difference, but they are on the same spectrum. I'm not advocating for humans to give up their place at the top of the current pyramid, but it's a dangerous notion to think that is how things *should* be, rather than acknowledging the processes that put us there.

There are two possibilities: we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Both are equally frightening. And pondering such is usually quite the character building exercise.

To be ethical in medicine is not just to heal, but to consider the price of medicine in all its aspects, including on the world in which we live.
 
"in the death of a significant number of monkeys," Monkeys are monkeys. They are here for us. If they help people than fine. I do have sympathy for the monkeys but not enough to stop testing on them.
I'd much prefer the death of significant of humans any day. I don't even have sympathy for them.
 
To think that other life merely exists for the exploitation of humans is the kind of hubris that not only gets us into environmental issues, but is also one step removed from the exploitation of other people. There's a difference, but they are on the same spectrum. I'm not advocating for humans to give up their place at the top of the current pyramid, but it's a dangerous notion to think that is how things *should* be, rather than acknowledging the processes that put us there.
Why? If an environmental problem affects humans, then it's a problem that humans should be working to alleviate... if it doesn't... then why should people go hungry, suffer and/or die to alleviate it?
There are two possibilities: we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Both are equally frightening. And pondering such is usually quite the character building exercise.
Platitudes great for philosophy... but not really important for every day life... we AREN'T alone - there are 8 billion other humans on this planet - that's plenty of company :)

I'm not terrified that we might be "alone"... what's to be scared about?
To be ethical in medicine is not just to heal, but to consider the price of medicine in all its aspects, including on the world in which we live.
No... to be ethical, we must make sure not to harm another human - I believe that's the basis of the hippopotamus oath doctors take before they can practice medicine (yes, I'm aware of the "incorrect" spelling of Hippocratic).
 
This one sounds like a failure that the Govt. should order withdrawn from clinical trials until they get it right, if ever.
Total nonsense as usual. The device is still functioning and the user didn't suffer any ill effects. Why should it be forcibly withdrawn?

To think that other life merely exists for the exploitation of humans is the kind of hubris that not only gets us into environmental issues...
It's actually the "kind of hubris" that took mankind out of the Stone Age. Personally, I'm rather happy with that move. Had we not 'exploited' the muscle power of animals we'd all still be hunter-gatherers. And had we not experimented on animals, medical science would still be in the age of alchemy.

There are two possibilities: we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Both are equally frightening.
Not that long ago, our society was boldly unafraid of anything the universe might care to throw at us. Now it seems many of your generation live in fear of their own shadow. Whether we're utterly alone or in a universe filled with bug-eyed monsters all wishing to devour us -- let's manfully make the best of the situation, eh?
 
Why? If an environmental problem affects humans, then it's a problem that humans should be working to alleviate... if it doesn't... then why should people go hungry, suffer and/or die to alleviate it?
Of course humans should be working to alleviate the issue, the problem is that humans are most often the cause of the issue in the first place.

I'm not terrified that we might be "alone"... what's to be scared about?
The same thing a person might be afraid of when they are on a cliff. Most people would say they are afraid of heights, but usually their own free will is what they are afraid of. With the flick of a few muscles they can throw themselves into oblivion. The same is true for Earth.

No... to be ethical, we must make sure not to harm another human - I believe that's the basis of the hippopotamus oath doctors take before they can practice medicine (yes, I'm aware of the "incorrect" spelling of Hippocratic).
Ethics is not restricted to only human beings. Even if it were restricted that way, such a view would still necessitate a care for other life, as humans depend upon it.

Monkeys are not equivalent to man. They are a lesser animal
Someday, we too will be the lesser animal. I suppose if one is fine with accepting such things, there is no contradiction.

It's actually the "kind of hubris" that took mankind out of the Stone Age. Personally, I'm rather happy with that move. Had we not 'exploited' the muscle power of animals we'd all still be hunter-gatherers. And had we not experimented on animals, medical science would still be in the age of alchemy.
There's a difference between hubris and practicality. Using the world we live in for our own ends is practical. Worshiping ourselves as the pinnacle of creation, opining that other forms of live exist merely to serve us, is a far different philosophy entirely. That is hubris.

Not that long ago, our society was boldly unafraid of anything the universe might care to throw at us. Now it seems many of your generation live in fear of their own shadow. Whether we're utterly alone or in a universe filled with bug-eyed monsters all wishing to devour us -- let's manfully make the best of the situation, eh?
Picard, too, was unafraid, before Q showed him the Borg. One need not live in fear, but observing the universe challenges any privileged notions we might have of ourselves. A bit of fear, if only in the moment of pondering, can be quite a good thing.
 
Back