Page 55 - JSOM Spring 2025

they stated: “The purpose of the cyborg . . . is to provide an comprehensive literature review. Neurosurgery. 2020;86(2):E108–
organizational system in which . . . robot-like problems are E117. doi:10.1093/neuros/nyz286
taken care of automatically and unconsciously, leaving man 19. Gu X, Cao Z, Jolfaei A, et al. EEG-based brain-computer inter-
free to explore, to create, to think, and to feel.” 1 faces (BCIs): a survey of recent studies on signal sensing tech-
nologies and computational intelligence approaches and their
applications. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2021;18
Disclosures (5):1645–1666. doi: 10.1109/TCBB.2021.3052811
The author has nothing to disclose. 20. Burns A, Adeli H, Buford JA. Brain–computer interface after ner-
vous system injury. Neuroscientist. 2014;20(6):639–651. doi:10.
Funding 1177/1073858414549015
No funding was received for this work. 21. Ramadan RA, Altamimi AB. Unraveling the potential of
brain-computer interface technology in medical diagnostics and
rehabilitation: a comprehensive literature review. Health Technol
References (Berl). 2024;14:263–276. doi:10.1007/s12553-024-00822-1
1. Clynes M, Kline N. Cyborgs and space. Astronautics. 1960;5(9): 22. Card NS, Wairagkar M, Iacobacci C, et al. An accurate and rapidly
26–27; 74–76. calibrating speech neuroprosthesis. N Engl J Med. 2024;391(7):
2. Kamie´nski Ł. Military neuroenhancement. In: Gruszczak A, 609–618. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2314132
Kaempf S, eds. Routledge Handbook of the Future of Warfare. 23. Nicolas-Alonso LF, Gomez-Gil J. Brain computer interfaces:
Routledge; 2023:341–352. a review. Sensors (Basel). 2012;12:1211–1279. doi:10.3390/
3. DiEuliis D, Emanuel P. Cyborg Soldier 2050: human-machine fu- s120201211
sion and its implications. In: Davis ZS, Gac F, Rager C, Reiner P, 24. Mridha MF, Das SC, Kabir MM, Lima AA, Islam MR, Watanobe
Snow J, eds. Strategic Latency Unleashed: The Role of Technology Y. Brain-computer interface: advancement and challenges. Sen-
in a Revisionist Global Order and the Implications for Special sors (Basel). 2021;21(17):5746. doi:10.3390/s21175746
Operations Forces. Center for Global Security Research, Law- 25. Maiseli B, Abdalla AT, Massawe LV, et al. Brain–computer inter-
rence Livermore National Laboratory; 2021:121–147. face: trend, challenges, and threats. Brain Inform. 2023;10(20).
4. Tennison M, Moreno J. Neuroscience, ethics, and national secu- doi:10.1186/s40708-023-00199-3
rity: the state of the art. PLoS Biol. 2012;10(3):e1001289. doi: 26. Zhang X, Ma Z, Zheng H, et al. The combination of brain-com-
10.1371/journal.pbio.1001289 puter interfaces and artificial intelligence: applications and chal-
5. Giordano J, Wurzman R. Neurotechnologies as weapons in national lenges. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(11):712. doi:10.21037/atm.2019.
intelligence and defense – An overview. Synesis. 2011;2:55–71. 11.109
6. Chaudhary U, Birbaumer N, Ramos-Murguialday A. Brain- 27. Yadav D, Yadav S, Veer K. A comprehensive assessment of brain-
computer interface for communication and rehabilitation. Nat Rev computer interfaces: recent trends and challenges. J Neurosci Meth-
Neurol. 2016;12(9):513–525. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2016.113 ods. 2020;346:108918. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2020.108918
7. Glavas K, Tzimourta KD, Angelidis P, Bibi S, Tsipouras MG. 28. Schmoigl-Tonis M, Schranz C, Müller-Putz GR. Methods for
Brain–computer interface controlled drones: a systematic review. motion artifact reduction in online brain-computer interface ex-
IEEE Access. 2024;12:61279–61300. periments: a systematic review. Front Hum Neurosci. 2023;17:
8. Miranda R, Casebeer WD, Hein AM, et al. DARPA-funded ef- 1251690. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2023.1251690
forts in the development of novel brain–computer interface tech- 29. Peksa J, Mamchur D. State-of-the-art on brain-computer inter-
nologies. J Neurosci Methods. 2015;244:52–67. doi:10.1016/j. face technology. Sensors (Basel). 2023;23(13):6001. doi:10.3390/
jneumeth.2014.07.019 s23136001
9. Krishnan A. Attack on the brain: neurowars and neurowar- 30. Ivanov A. A review of brain-computer interfaces and their appli-
fare. Space and Defense. 2016;9(1):4–21. doi:10.32873/uno.dc. cations. E+E. 2023;58(4):100–105.
sd.09.01.1110 31. Zhao ZP, Nie C, Jiang CT, et al. Modulating brain activity with
10. Hoag H. Remote control. Nature. 2003;423(6940):796–798. doi: invasive brain–computer interface: a narrative review. Brain Sci.
10.1038/423796a 2023;13(1):134. doi:10.3390/brainsci13010134
11. Munyon CN. Neuroethics of non-primary brain computer inter- 32. Abiri R, Borhani S, Sellers EW, Jiang Y, Zhao X. A comprehen-
face: focus on potential military applications. Front Neurosci. sive review of EEG-based brain–computer interface paradigms. J
2018;12:696. doi:10.3389/fnins.2018.00696 Neural Eng. 2019;16(1):011001. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aaf12e
12. Novelly T, Fryer-Biggs Z. The next frontier for warfighters might 33. Kübler A. The history of BCI: from a vision for the future to real
be implants in their brains. Is the Pentagon ready for the conse- support for personhood in people with locked-in syndrome. Neu-
quences? Military.com. Published July 28, 2023. Accessed Septem- roethics. 2020;13:163–180. doi:10.1007/s12152-019-09409-4
ber 23, 2024. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/07/28/ 34. McFarland DJ, Wolpaw JR. EEG-based brain–computer inter-
next-frontier-warfighters-might-be-implants-their-brains- face. Curr Opin Biomed Eng. 2017;4:194–200. doi:10.1016/j.
pentagon-ready-consequences.html cobme.2017.11.004
13. U.S. Army Futures Command Futures and Concepts Center. 35. Smalley E. The business of brain–computer interfaces. Nat Bio-
Army Futures Command Concept for Special Operations 2028. technol. 2019;37(9):978–982. doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0231-y
AFC Pam 71-20-4. Army.mil. 2020:41, 45. https://api.army.mil/ 36. Tai P, Ding P, Wang F, et al. Brain-computer interface paradigms
e2/c/downloads/2021/01/05/bdd61c44/20200918-afc-pam-71- and neural coding. Front Neurosci. 2024;17:1345961. doi:10.
20-4-afc-concept-for-special-operations-2028-final.pdf 3389/fnins.2023.1345961
14. Emanuel P, Walper S, DiEuliis D, et al. Cyborg Soldier 2050: 37. Elashmawi WH, Ayman A, Antoun M, et al. A comprehensive re-
Human/Machine Fusion and the Implications for the Future of view on brain–computer interface (BCI)-based machine and deep
the DOD. U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Com- learning algorithms for stroke rehabilitation. Applied Sciences.
mand Chemical Biological Center; 2019. 2024;14(14):6347. doi:10.3390/app14146347
15. Krishnan A. Enhanced warfighters as private military contractors. 38. Rudroff T. Decoding thoughts, encoding ethics: a narrative re-
In: Galliott J, Lotz M, eds. Super Soldiers: The Ethical, Legal and view of the BCI-AI revolution. Brain Res. 2025;1850:149423.
Social Implications. Ashgate; 2015:65–80. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2024.149423
16. Binnendijk A, Marler T, Bartels EM. Brain-Computer Interfaces. 39. Cinel C, Valeriani D, Poli R. Neurotechnologies for human cog-
U.S. Military Applications and Implications. RAND Corporation; nitive augmentation: current state of the art and future pros-
2020. pects. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019;13:13. doi:10.3389/fnhum.
17. Saha S, Mamun KA, Ahmed K, et al. Progress in brain computer 2019.00013
interface: challenges and opportunities. Front Syst Neurosci. 40. Lotte F, Bougrain L, Cichocki A, et al. A review of classification al-
2021;15:578875. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2021.578875 gorithms for EEG-based brain-computer interfaces: a 10-year up-
18. Martini M, Oermann EK, Opie NL, Panov F, Oxley T, Yaeger date. J Neural Eng. 2018;15(3):031005. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/
K. Sensor modalities for brain-computer interface technology: a aab2f2

The Present and Future of BCI Technology | 53