Building Better Brains: Neural Prosthetics and Beyond

A recent conference at The New York Academy of Sciences explored neural prosthetics and their potential use in human therapies.

Published March 1, 2011

By Stephanie Kelly
Academy Contributor

Neural prosthetics offer the promise of what was once unthinkable, the restoration of perceptive or movement ability in those who have lost it. But these devices offer much more than that. From September 23 through 25, 2010, researchers in all areas of the neural prosthetics field converged at the Building Better Brains: Neural Prosthetics and Beyond conference to examine ongoing work and the future of this exciting research avenue.

Though promising, neural prosthetics, which interact directly with an individual’s nervous system to enhance function, have not yet achieved widespread use as human therapies. Among other obstacles, an inadequate understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of brain action has so far hampered efforts to develop implantable neural devices. Some speakers at this conference presented their work aimed at advancing the basic neurobiological research that undergirds neural prosthetic applications. Their research has investigated, among many other areas, the mechanisms of neural plasticity, the utility of electrical signals in the high frequency range, and the defining features of signals involved in movement planning and even in high level cognitive behaviors such as emotional control and language use.

Technological and bioengineering hurdles also present a significant barrier to the widespread use of neural prosthetics in a clinical setting. Many of the conference speakers who work directly with neural prosthetics in non-human primates or in clinical trials lamented problems with the reliability and fidelity of neural recordings made with existing devices. Not only that, but current devices have an effective lifetime of only a few years.

Restoring Neurobiological Connections

However, conference participants highlighted the great strides that have been made in recent years by improving existing electrodes to reduce damage to the surrounding cells and by moving in new directions to create wholly different types of recording devices. Any devices that do meet these high benchmarks of functionality will also need to meet stringent safety criteria.

Throughout the course of the conference, it was clear that neural prosthetics have the potential not only to mimic “ordinary” motor function more closely than ever before, but also to restore neurobiological connections, to reanimate paralyzed limbs by stimulating muscles directly, to facilitate the reorganization of neural connections to “work around” damaged areas, to improve recovery from some neuropsychological disorders, and much more.

Researchers emphasized that these possibilities are only realized through the intersection of groundbreaking fundamental neuroscience research and innovative technological development, all of which must be grounded in critical analysis of the clinical, social, and ethical impact of the work. As presenters indicated during the conference, this analysis has already begun— with research into the histological impact of recording devices, the differential impact of ECoG-versus EEG-based brain–computer interfaces, the accuracy of yes or no responses from individuals in a vegetative state, and into the ethical ramifications of enhancing neural function in previously unimpaired individuals, to name a few areas speakers discussed.

The use and development of neural prosthetics will continue to raise difficult ethical and scientific questions, but, as the speakers in this conference demonstrated, these questions are often just as interesting, fruitful, and challenging as they are potentially confounding.

Also read: Neuroplasticity, Neuroregeneration, and Brain Repair