The Future of Brain Implants
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
There's no way to put them in without inherently causing some amount of tissue damage - so you're committed to brain damage occurring at the moment.
And once in, the good ones, you can't take out - neurons grow into them and trying to pull them out will take a chunk of tissue with them.
If there's ever going to be a significant uptake in such technology, these are all issues we have to solve - i.e. we need a way of getting them wired in non-destructively, and a way to undo that non-destructively. That's well into science fiction realms - nanotechnological wiring which carefully weaves between cells and the like.
In terms of removal, it's actually easier with age, for some odd reason. Surgeons report that after a few years, they slide out. A lot of handwaving as to why, but some thought is that there's some sort of encapsulation layer that builds between the surface and the neural tissue, or some layer of fluid space or whatnot.
It's a matter of perfecting the tech. The experimental BCI stuff - i.e. Utah arrays, are still externalized and are risky, and yes they do have a ways to go before ready for population-wide deployment..
Pretty standard stereotactic stuff - metal rigid frame (google Leksell or CRW/Luminant for examples) gets bolted into the outermost bone layer (w/ local anesthesia) that puts the head into an XYZ cartesian coordinate system. The complex stuff is the planning - MRI images have to be taken w/ the frame on, and there's some linear image registration that happens via software. Once the surgeon plans the trajectory (basically a straight line to the targeted brain structure), it's relatively easy - the incision/craniotomy is basically a ~1 cm or less burr hole drilled into the skull, and a micro drive advances first a micro electrode (for confirmation via single unit nerve firing recordings every ~ 0.5 mm or so), then the actual electrode, which is a little over 1 mm in diameter. The surgeon may adjust the trajectory by a few mm either way if he decides he doesn't like the recordings along the length of the trajectory.
The battery/onboard electronics is in a pacemaker-like device that is just put in under the skin in the chest...the tunneling of the wire from the skull to to chest is arguably the hardest part surgically.
Epilepsy brain mapping, on the other hand, is a whole lot more complex, with much more signals processing and data acquisition involved (a bunch of 8x8, 16x16 or more grids of ~ 0.5-1cm electrodes recording local field potentials, and a open craniotomy where you take off a large chunk of skull)
I would want a flesh colors cap for the plug for when it's unplugged, don't want anyone trying to plug headphones into me.
A port would be nice - I think a more pressing need for "ports" would be the critical care and oncology (cancer) folks - patients who need to provide access to the bloodstream. Central lines, dialysis fistulas, chemotherapy ports are all notorious for getting infection.
We're not talking about a minor infection of a cut, say, but serious risks like abcesses and sepsis and meningitis here (especially re brain implants who cross the meninges and into brainspace...don't want bacteria happily munching away there...)
That being said, the next evolution of the brain-machine interfaces that use high-bandwith data and power transfer to get around the whole pesky skin issue.
As far as putting them in it isn't 100% necessary to damage the brain when installing one. The BCI connection could "grow" around and into a part of the brain to create the connection.
Safety would be the #1 concern when building the implants, so even if something went wrong hopefully the damage would be limited or non-existent.
Do you have a cite for this?
Never used in people - but the point stands - making a good connection to the brain involves something similar.
The far from future ones will be so advanced that they will upgrade themselves or "grow".
The BCIs that can be upgraded can either be plugged in and unplugged to be upgraded or could be wireless.
Yes, wireless would be possible but the connection to the brain and speaking the same language are the biggest hurdles.
There is a ton of cool stuff that will become available in the medical industry in the next few years. There's no reason why we can't have a miniature "factory" inside of our bodies to regulate levels of everything and even create cures for diseases or viruses that might infect us.
Monitoring the body will also become more popular. A few small sensors throughout the body to monitor vitals and any information available about the human body via your phone.
It's coming soon, just be patient and don't vote for people who will suppress technological research and progress.
As an aside, I'm reading a book (Open Veins of Latin America) and it starts out with the history and how the Spaniards barely needed to do anything to wipe out the Amerindians since there was such a wide gap in weapon technology (plus bacteria) between them.
An implant which literally makes you a better human might be kept highly priced, like a Ferrari, which doesn't come down in price after a few years.
If anyone wants to see this mostly played out in a tv show, Almost Human (episode 10) introduces the notion of "chromes" who are genetically enhanced humans. Inherently better than regular humans, the show has them preferring their own company rather than mixing with regular folk. I'm hoping they'll expand on the concept in further episodes.
Btw, Almost Human might be cancelled. Better support it if you want another season.
A technological solution to the implant problem is unlikely to encounter the craftsmanship problem (it may, but I'm thinking that a key aspect of making it work well would be removing the skill of a neurosurgeon from the process).
DBS and other devices with medical indications, should bear the cost of a medical copay or deductible. (DBS itself is covered by most insurances for Parkinson's, tremor, dystonia, and OCD).
As long as I don't have to "give" anything to remain free from implants, I'll watch the technology with interest, and maybe consider something when it's perfected and fully under the user's control.
If on the other hand, there is any effort to impose this sort of thing on unwilling people, there will be widespread violent resistance (a prediction, not a threat).
http://www.amazon.com/America-The-Enslaved-Neurochip-ebook/d...
In the future 2032 the US government passes an N-Chip law putting neurochips in the brains of the mentally ill and people with a criminal history in trying to control them. The two main characters got tricked into making the chip and this megacorp modified it. It has backdoors to shock the brain unconscious or to death. People rebel and protest, and are killed by security guards and police with neurorifles that activate the backdoor in the chip.
Free for Prime members, otherwise 99 cents. A good sci fi story but needs work on grammar and other stuff.
A computer grafted into your brain. Of course there are one or two back doors, although that is not the focus of the stories.
My thinking here is that this is going to be a huge area of science in the next 5-10 years and I kind of wouldn't mind getting involved with this stuff now as a hobby.
Sensors: most CS programs seem to have them. USC has an interactive division ("ISC"? they're over in Playa Vista). UCLA seems to have some programs. The CS people probably know who's doing what w/ the kinect and related hardware better than I.
Northwestern has a group that's doing myoelectric signals for prosthetics.
Caltech has a lot of people working on a lot of things
The brain-machine-interface folks have groups in Berkeley/stanford/mass general and Brown...
For DBS, Case Western, UMN, Duke, Emory have good research groups.
USCD has a huge amount of neuro/CS people - more basic stuff like computational modeling and theoretical projects, but I think they are getting very well known for this sort of thing.
OHSU has some collaboration with intel for health sensors/kinetics.
(from www.paleofuture.com)