The first Neuralink implant in a human malfunctioned after several threads recording neural activity retracted from the brain, the Elon Musk-owned startup revealed Wednesday.
The threads retracted in the weeks following the surgery in late January that placed the Neuralink hardware in 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh’s brain, the company said in a blog post.
This reduced the number of effective electrodes and the ability of Arbaugh, a quadriplegic, to control a computer cursor with his brain.
“In response to this change, we modified the recording algorithm to be more sensitive to neural population signals, improved the techniques to translate these signals into cursor movements, and enhanced the user interface,” Neuralink said in the blog post.
The company said the adjustments resulted in a “rapid and sustained improvement” in bits-per-second, a measure of speed and accuracy of cursor control, surpassing Arbaugh’s initial performance.
While the problem doesn’t appear to pose a risk to Arbaugh’s safety, Neuralink reportedly floated the idea of removing his implant, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The company has also told the Food and Drug Administration that it believes it has a solution for the issue that occurred with Arbaugh’s implant, the Journal reported.
The implant was placed just more than 100 days ago. In the blog post, the company touted Arbaugh’s ability to play online computer games, browse the internet, livestream and use other applications “all by controlling a cursor with his mind.”
This was to be expected and they handled it well imo. I’m not gonna get one though.
Agreed. I was flippant after reading the headline, since I don’t like Musk, but once I read the story I was like "oh yeah this tech does have big potential for the differently abled. "
A quadriplegic being able to control a cursor on a screen with the implant for 100 days seems like a legit first attempt.
Could be great for the accessibility movement in the long run. But I could be naive or too optimistic.
There are some politically correct terms that are not well liked by the people they describe:
I cannot speak to any of these, however, I learned that that you should just ask. If you can’t ask, put the “human” first such as people with disabilities or people who are deaf, blind, etc. Latine is another term I’ve heard, but in the community, there are those that like it and those that don’t.
What you said is often true but not always. Some communities prefer person-first language, some prefer identity first language.
For example, generally speaking, “autistic people” is preferred over “people with autism”. The reasoning being “this is just part of who I am, it’s not an affliction that I have.”
I’m not autistic but I have lots of friends who are, and they all prefer to say “I’m autistic” rather than “I have autism”.
Like you said, it’s best to ask, or just copy the language that the person uses for themself.
This is correct
Why, when we already have non-surgical solutions that allow the same thing but don’t come with the risk of killing you?
Please dude I promise you this is near universally hated by disabled people 😭
Why not? Nothing wrong with research and development as long as everyone participating in the test is an informed, consenting adult IMO. The advancements could make current accessibility tech even better. For one reason or another, a quadriplegic person decided they were willing to take the risk, so maybe they consider current accessibility tech for quadriplegics to be insufficient and wanted to try for something better?
Well damn, I didn’t know.
I agree with not liking ‘differently-abled’ as a term. To me it reads along the same lines as ‘disabled people are built different’. Pretty awkward.
Not that I have a horse in this race. Or a neuralink, as the case may be.
Yeah I feel like it’s an attempt to resolve the Deaf stance that deafness isn’t a disability. The general stance of the Deaf community is closer to that of the queer community than that of say the paraplegic community. It sees deafness as a disability constructed by a society unwilling to communicate visually and to teach signed languages to all people able to use them.
Mind you we’re the contentious portion of the disabled world. The Deaf are as bad as lesbians I tell ya.
But on point, “differently abled” feels like it washes away the struggle. I am disabled. I’m disabled by a society that taught my great grandparents, my grandparents, and my parents not to teach their hard of hearing children sign language because otherwise we won’t use English. I’m disabled by a society that doesn’t include visual signals in emergency sounds even when it’s easy to do. I’m disabled by a society where people, including cops, will speak to the back of my head and not even consider that I didn’t respond because I didn’t hear. And I’m disabled by the assumption my life has to be worse for having less sound as though I’m not extremely literate and completely capable of using a signed language. I’m not “differently abled” I’m completely able in most ways everyone else is, and people who can’t learn to communicate visually are just as disabled as people who can’t learn to communicate audibly.
I know this is a point of some contention among the deaf community, but how do you feel about the development of a “standard” international sign? Personally, and I’m speaking as a fully hearing person, I think a basic international sign should be developed and taught to everyone. Not only to facilitate communication with the hard of hearing, but also in loud environments and with those who don’t share a spoken language.
It’s my understanding that a large portion of the deaf community is hostile to the idea of a universal sign from a cultural perspective, since each regional sign has cultural content. However I think it’s a potential solution for numerous issues, with more pros than cons.
You misunderstand language itself, not just sign language, if you think a universal language is possible or even a good thing
All twenty of us Esperanto speakers just entered the chat! 🤩
It would certainly be limited and rudimentary; I wouldn’t suggest a solution exists capable of any broad nuance. But gesture is a unique variety of communication, in that it can convey “innate” meaning in ways verbal language simply cannot, except in the case of onomatopoeia. Pointing is nearly universal, smiling is nearly universal, beckoning is nearly universal. Gesture is a spatial form of communication, centered around our primary means of material interaction with the world.
Grammar and syntax aside, I’d argue that it would be possible to assemble a vocabulary of universal concepts (eat, drink, sleep, travel, me, you, communicate, cooperate, come here, go away, etc). Certainly not a language for extended detailed conversation, but a codification and extension of gestures which are already nearly universal by virtue of their innate implications alone. Enough to communicate that you’re hungry, but not enough to send for takeout.
A universal language, at the level of any other sophisticated language, is obviously impossible. A formal codification of simple gestures to communicate at the most basic human concepts is much more doable.
I can tell you only speak one language, or maybe another Latin based language in addition to English. If you’d learned something like Mandarin, you’d understand how complex, regional, and historical language is. It’s based on layers and shifts constantly. Sometimes, that’s specifically because people don’t want to be understood by everyone.
I really recommend reading academic books about this topic if you are curious. My favorite is Neurolinguistics and Linguistic Aphasiology, by David Caplan. You may also enjoy Chomsky’s works because he talks about commonalities in language or universal language.
There’s no need to formally codify those hand gestures, because we innately already understand and make them. Making eating motions (which may look different depending on regional utensils) is pretty universal right? But it looks different in different places.
My aunt and uncle are Deaf and contentious is pretty accurate.
I get why cochlear implants are shunned, but I don’t get why it’s such a hot button to even consider. We give paraplegics wheelchairs y’know
Because they kinda suck in a way wheelchairs don’t. Wheelchairs grant an alternative to ambulation. Cochlear implants give a new sense, one that those born without it literally don’t have the brain buildup to deal with. Like, look into those who got it and don’t use it. And often they’re forced on children by parents who will never learn sign language. I’m on board with children getting CIs as a teenager if a mental health professional with expertise in the deaf signs off that they weren’t unduly coerced, but it’s a major medical decision often forced or coerced on infants and young children by hearing parents and a hearing society to serve the interests of the hearing rather than the deaf child.
Fucking hell, hearing aids are uncomfortable. And not just because it’s something inside your ears. Like, it’s not the same as natural hearing (my loss is degenerative, I’ve had both). The sound filtration is worse and it overstimulates the brain. But hearing people get angry when you turn your ears off because you need a break because to many hearing people the point is to make you not deaf/hard of hearing. But the fact is we always are, it’s just that sometimes we’re using an assistive device that is often uncomfortable or outright painful.
Cochlear implants might be better seen as a lesbian having a platonic husband instead of a romantic wife. It’s uncomfortable assimilation and a worse solution in the absence of social pressure, and it gives the pressure ammunition. Absent the social pressures, it’s your choice. And to be upfront, I expect to get them once my hearing reaches the point they’re better than hearing aids. And also if I was a native signer they would have to earn a place in my skull and I’m angry that I’m not a native signer. As I implied, my hearing loss is genetic, and it fits pretty well to what your middle school taught you about a mono-allele dominant trait.
Wheelchairs are often seen as liberating to their users. Hearing aids and cochlear implants are often seen as burdens to their users. Nobody has to punish their child or nag their spouse into using their wheelchair, but for hearing devices, it’s common, it’s expected, it’s something you’re warned about beforehand. Please be understanding of the Deaf, we may not always be the nicest or easiest to understand, but nobody understands deafness better than us.
Actually in the wheelchair community, there can indeed be pressure to use the least assistive wheelchair possible. Chairs aren’t 100% seen as liberating and there’s a lot of nuance into why people pick certain chairs beyond finances. My aunt repeatedly fell out of her chair because she insisted on one made for a lower back injury than she has. She kept it for status, because she looks more able without the sides.
I guess ‘differently abled,’ just comes across as ableism to me. Not using visible signs of a disability, like a chair or hearing aids, can be internalized ableism. Some of the worst verbalized ableism I’ve heard has come from disabled communities. It’s a very complicated topic, not least because disability is used to harm disabled people and take away their agency. And for many, there is a lot of grief with using assisitive devices.
That being said, I don’t think people should be forced to change or to use devices they dislike. My aunt still uses her chair, it’s not like we’re going to drag her into another one or whatever. I just wanted to point out the internalized ableism that could be contributing to this attitude and word change.
It wasn’t so long ago that the Civil rights Era stopped disabled people from being chained in attics and lobotomized and hid away. It’s entirely reasonable to fear that association.
I mean people are surprised that autistic people dislike autism speaks
Had a class with some ABA techs who gave a presentation about Autism Speaks for their final project - they had no idea that criticism of AS/their entire field existed.
oh, ABA, you mean the “therapy” that for some reason causes a suicide rate of over 70%?
tho an “ABA tech” is cheaper than an actual medical professional since they just need a few weeks of training instead of several years
That’s like saying blind people are not disabled, it’s just society that insists on visual stimuli
The deaf argument is that there’s no need for assistance of assistive tools. An all deaf town would experience no undue hardships unlike an all blind town.
I’m personally on the fence about it, but trust me when I write that we’ve seen whatever your gut instinct on this is before. Your gut take is just a hearing person speaking against Deaf theory written by Deaf people and the people far more involved in it are probably not going to see it because the Deaf don’t deal with the hearing as much as other disabled groups do, for obvious reasons.
How do people who have gained hearing feel about it? It seems like hearing would be important for a number of things besides communication, but maybe modern life doesn’t require much?
There’s a variety of opinions. Born deaf often don’t like it. The later deafened you are the more you tend to want hearing back.
It’s not even about the communication per se, it’s also about the physical act of hearing which can be uncomfortable
Deaf people and hard of hearing people may be more likely to be involved in car accidents
https://journal.nafe.org/ojs/index.php/nafe/article/view/27
Seems to be a much faster interface with bigger bandwidth.
Is it worth risking dying to be able to move a mouse slightly faster than you can move your eyes and blink? If your answer to that is yes that’s your body, but I think it’s important to contextualize that the options here aren’t brain implant or nothing.
Because instead of a mouse cursor today, it could be a robotic leg or anything else tomorrow.
Being able to control electronics with the same ease we do our own body has so many benefits.
Except there are other companies working on this problem that don’t come with the baggage Musk brings with him.
One is even looking at using veins to insert the microchip.
https://www.massdevice.com/brain-computer-interface-bci-companies/
I get that there are better choices now, but let’s not pretend like a straw you blow into is the technological stopping point for limb-free computer control (sorry if that’s not actually the best option, it’s just the one I’m familiar with). There are plenty of things to trash talk Neuralink about without pretending this technology (or it’s future form) is meritless.
I feel like I’m going nuts, is eye controlled adaptive tech really that obscure? We’re not talking about maybe letting people walk again or giving them otherwise unattainable control over a computer, we’re talking about a different mouse input. The risks should be proportional to the gains.
Can you take a moment and imagine some possibilities of taking input directly from someone’s mind and applying it without needing to use your body? I know moving a mouse doesn’t seem impressive, but it demonstrates success at a technological concept that still seems impossible. I can’t speak for the ethics because I don’t know how voluntary the subjects are for the research, but this is very exciting for me, because it will inevitably become more sophisticated.
Cool, when you can upload your thoughts somewhere we’ll be having a different conversation about its risks and uses. But what’s happening right now is that they did brain surgery on a man to let him move a computer mouse.
Do you think we’ll get to that advanced level of use without experiments? And do you think that this is wrong despite consent to the procedure?
I don’t accept that disabled people must be sacrificed at the altar of Progress, and I think the entire process for how they recruit patients and explain the capabilities and risks of the implant deserves extreme scrutiny. There’s a reason doctors have to get hours of education in ethics to be considered competent, it’s a lot more complicated than “just do whatever if it can technically work for a bit.”
I will never not post this. This is what anyone who gets one of these is destined for :
https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete
When a company stops supporting devices like this, the devices and their documentation and code should be required to enter the public domain. It should not be allowed for assistive devices to become e-waste stuck in a patient’s body.
Of course it is. The what neuralink is touting is the exact same situation that company was in. What happened there was they were creating an application for types of rare retinal blindness with the hopes that some other research would magically come along that makes it apply to other types of blindness and give them a market they could properly scale in. Surprise Surprise, no such deus ex machina occurred and the company could not see a path to profitability.
Neuralink is the exact same, cervical vertebra paralysis has less invasive adaptive mechanisms that are cheaper to implement, so there’s no way this will ever be a profitable approach with that alone. They’re hoping that this will magic into some brain machine interface without any actual hope that is going to happen.
The basic research just isn’t there to be doing this shit, but the investor dollars need to be put somewhere.