Page 56 - JSOM Spring 2025

41. Bockbrader MA, Francisco G, Lee R, et al. Brain computer inter- 57. Daly JJ, Huggins JE. Brain-computer interface: current and emerg-
faces in rehabilitation medicine. PM R. 2018;10(9 Suppl 2):S233– ing rehabilitation applications. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;
S243. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.05.028 96(3 Suppl):S1–S7. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2015.01.007
42. Rasheed S. A review of the role of machine learning techniques to- 58. Young, MJ, Lin DJ, Hochberg LR. Brain-computer interfaces in
wards brain–computer interface applications. Machine Learning neurorecovery and neurorehabilitation. Semin Neurol. 2021;41
& Knowledge Extraction. 2021;3(4):835–862. doi.org/10.3390/ (2):206–216. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1725137
make3040042 59. Oganesian LL, Shanechi MM. Brain–computer interfaces for neu-
43. Drigas A, Sideraki A. Brain neuroplasticity leveraging virtual re- ropsychiatric disorders. Nat Rev Bioeng. 2024;2:653–670. doi.
ality and brain–computer interface technologies. Sensors (Basel). org/10.1038/s44222-024-00177-2
2024;24(17):5725. doi:10.3390/s24175725 60. Al-Taleb MKH, Purcell M, Fraser M, Petric-Gray N, Vuckovic
44. Martin-Sanchez F, Maojo V. Biomedical informatics and the A. Home used, patient self-managed, brain-computer interface
convergence of nano-bio-info-cogno (NBIC) technologies. Yearb for the management of central neuropathic pain post spinal cord
Med Inform. 2009:134–142. injury: usability study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019;16:128. doi:
45. Krucoff MO, Rahimpour S, Slutzky MW, Edgerton VR, Turner 10.1186/s12984-019-0588-7
DA. Enhancing nervous system recovery through neurobiologics, 61. King BJ, Read GJM, Salmon PM. Identifying risk controls for
neural interface training, and neurorehabilitation. Front Neuro- future advanced brain-computer interfaces: a prospective risk
sci. 2016;10:584. doi:10.3389/fnins.2016.00584 assessment approach using work domain analysis. Appl Ergon.
46. Chen Y, Wang F, Li T, et al. Several inaccurate or erroneous con- 2023;111:104028. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104028
ceptions and misleading propaganda about brain-computer in- 62. Patrick-Krueger KM, Burkhart I, Contreras-Vidal JL. The state of
terfaces. Front Hum Neurosci. 2024;18:1391550. doi:10.3389/ clinical trials of implantable brain–computer interfaces. Nat Rev
fnhum.2024.1391550 Bioeng. 2025;3:50–67. doi:10.1038/s44222-024-00239-5
47. Lorach H, Galvez A, Spagnolo V, et al. Walking naturally after spi- 63. Drew L. United States sets the pace for implantable brain- computer
nal cord injury using a brain–spine interface. Nature. 2023;618 interfaces. Nature. 2024;634(8032):S8-S10. doi:10.1038/d41586-
(7963):126–133. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06094-5 024-03046-5
48. Jebari K. Brain-machine interface and human enhancement – an 64. Boulingre M, Portillo-Lara R, Green RA. Biohybrid neural in-
ethical review. Neuroethics. 2013;6(4):617–625. doi:10.1007/ terfaces: improving the biological integration of neural implants.
s12152-012-9176-2 Chem Commun (Camb). 2023;59(100):14745–14758. doi:10.
49. Flesher SN, Downey JE, Weiss JM et al, A brain-computer inter- 1039/d3cc05006h
face that evokes tactile sensations improves robotic arm control. 65. Luo J, Xue N, Chen J. A review: research progress of neural
Science. 2021;372(6544):831–836. doi:10.1126/science.abd0380 probes for brain research and brain–computer interface. Biosen-
50. Greenspon CM, Valle G, Shelchkova ND, et al. Evoking stable sors (Basel). 2022;12(12):1167. doi:10.3390/bios12121167
and precise tactile sensations via multi-electrode intracortical 66. Burwell S, Sample M, Racine E. Ethical aspects of brain com-
microstimulation of the somatosensory cortex. Nat Biomed puter interfaces: a scoping review. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18:60.
Eng. Published online December 6, 2024. doi:10.1038/s41551- doi:10.1186/s12910-017-0220-y
024-01299-z 67. Klein, E. Informed consent in implantable BCI research: identify-
51. Valle G, Alamri AH, Downey JE, et al. Tactile edges and motion ing risks and exploring meaning. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22:1299–
via patterned microstimulation of the human somatosensory 1317. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9712-7
cortex. Science. 2025;387(6731):315–322. doi:10.1126/science. 68. Khan S, Aziz T. Transcending the brain: is there a cost to hack-
adq5978 ing the nervous system? Brain Commun. 2019;1(1):fcz015. doi:
52. Dretsch MN, Neff D, Caserta R, Deagle E, Hoge CW, Adler AB. 10.1093/braincomms/fcz015
Rates of behavioral health conditions and health risk behaviors 69. Drew L. The brain-reading devices helping paralysed people to
in operators and support personnel in U.S. Special Operations move, talk and touch. Nature. 2022;604(7906):416–419. doi:
Forces. Psychiatry. 2020;83(4):358–374. doi:10.1080/00332747 10.1038/d41586-022-01047-w
.2020.1768787 70. Tracey I, Flower R. The warrior in the machine: neuroscience goes
53. Frueh BC, Madan A, Fowler JC, et al. “Operator syndrome”: a to war. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014;15(12):825–834. doi:10.1038/
unique constellation of medical and behavioral health-care needs nrn3835
of military special operation forces. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2020; 71. Rao RP, Stocco A, Bryan M, et al. A direct brain-to-brain inter-
55(4):281–295. doi:10.1177/0091217420906659 face in humans. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e111332. doi:10.1371/
54. Mudgal SK, Sharma S, Chaturvedi J, Sharma A. Brain-computer in- journal.pone.0111332
terface advancement in neurosciences: applications and issues. In- 72. Vakilipour P, Fekrvand S. Brain-to-brain interface technology: a
terdisciplinary Neurosurgery. 2020;20:100694. doi.org/10.1016/ brief history, current state, and future goals. Int J Dev Neurosci.
j.inat.2020.100694 2024;84:351–367. doi:10.1002/jdn.10334
55. Popa LL, Chira D, Strilciuc S, et al. Non-invasive systems appli- 73. Scharre P. Artificial intelligence: risks and opportunities for SOF.
cation in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. Brain Sci. 2023; In: Davis ZS, Gac F, Rager C, Reiner P, Snow J, eds. Strategic La-
x113(11):1594. doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13111594 tency Unleashed: The Role of Technology in a Revisionist Global
56. Hampson RE, Song D, Robinson BS, et al. Developing a hippocam- Order and the Implications for Special Operations Forces. Center
pal neural prosthetic to facilitate human memory encoding and re- for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore National Lab-
call. J Neural Eng. 2018;15(3):036014. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ oratory; 2021.
aaaed7
PMID: 40042891; DOI: 10.55460/FA29-NVKE

54 | JSOM Volume 25, Edition 1 / Spring 2025