Neuroengineering
@neuroengineering.bsky.social
340 followers 110 following 150 posts
Your (non-addictive) dose of neurotechnology news 🧠⚡️
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
neuroengineering.bsky.social
Ultrasound maps deep brain function over months

Scientists used functional ultrasound imaging to record from primate parietal cortex over months. Their method combines high spatial resolution and long-term stability, revealing direction-tuned saccadic neural patches

#neuroskyence #compneurosky
Functional ultrasound neuroimaging reveals mesoscopic organization of saccades in the lateral intraparietal area - Nature Communications
The functional organization of the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) for guiding eye movements has remained unknown. Here, the authors use functional ultrasound neuroimaging to reveal small, tuned clust...
www.nature.com
Reposted by Neuroengineering
russpoldrack.org
OpenNeuro @openneuro.bsky.social just hit a huge milestone: 1500 datasets! Congrats to the team on making this project so successful over the last 7 years.
neuroengineering.bsky.social
This will be the largest coordinated tACS study to date.

Its outcome will shape how we interpret and apply brain stimulation in the future. Learn more and follow updates here:

🔗 tacschallenge.org

#tACSChallenge #Neurostimulation #NIBS #OpenScience #neuroskyence

🧵5/5
tacschallenge.org
neuroengineering.bsky.social
Participating labs include @unimainz.bsky.social, @imperialcollegeldn.bsky.social, @uofglasgow.bsky.social , @stanford.edu, @kingscollegelondon.bsky.social.

Today marks the official kick-off. Data collection runs Aug 2025–Aug 2026, with results expected in 2027.

🧵4/5
neuroengineering.bsky.social
The tACS Challenge unites labs worldwide under a single, pre-registered protocol.

They will test whether 10 Hz tACS can modulate visual performance while controlling for known artefacts. All data and code will be shared openly.

🧵3/5
neuroengineering.bsky.social
For over a decade, tACS has been explored as a way to rhythmically interact with brain activity and behavior.

While many studies report promising effects, results vary across labs, highlighting the need for larger, coordinated investigations.

🧵2/5
neuroengineering.bsky.social
🧠⚡️ Can transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) truly rhythmically modulate brain activity in humans?

More than 30 labs are joining forces in the tACS Challenge, a global effort to test one of brain stimulation's biggest questions.

🧵1/5
neuroengineering.bsky.social
Awesome work! congrats to the whole team
neuroengineering.bsky.social
With all that said, we agree the system can (and should) improve. But stopping research until ethics are "settled" isn't the answer.

We need stronger safeguards (independent ethics, transparency, global dialogue) while enabling responsible innovation. Unfortunately, there is no single solution.
neuroengineering.bsky.social
Which brings us to the current solution of local ethical committees and approvals for any research to be conducted at all. This study, for example, was approved by the Elche ethics committee, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02983370), and conducted under EU clinical trial regulations.

🧵(8/8)
neuroengineering.bsky.social
We simply wouldn't have enough ethicists to resolve all open questions, assuming they could even agree on global standards across so many cultures and values. And even if they did, there are no enforcement bodies to make such standards *global* and ensure they are followed by *everyone*.

🧵(7/8)
neuroengineering.bsky.social
What you propose would only work with a *worldwide* halt on *all* neurotech research, which seems impossible with so many parties involved.

And if that logic applies, why not halt every other field too? That would create countless ethical questions, far too many to handle.

🧵(6/8)
neuroengineering.bsky.social
With neurotech it's even harder and more delicate: beyond the risk of misuse, the ethical requirements themselves are unclear.

For example, technologies that might alter or decode memory raise questions we can't yet define, because we don't know what is scientifically possible.

🧵(5/8)
neuroengineering.bsky.social
Otherwise we would never have dynamites (or any technology for that matter) since all can be misused depending on who uses it.

🧵(4/8)
neuroengineering.bsky.social
So halting research postponed the benefit of using dynamites to open tunnels for many people.

One could argue it also postponed people being killed by dynamites. But if we accept dynamite as a necessary technology for progress and wellbeing, then we have to accept both its pros and cons.

🧵(3/8)
neuroengineering.bsky.social
Take dynamite: once its feasibility was shown, should research have stopped until ethics were agreed?

Say, after long debate we decide that dynamites should only be used for mines and not for killing. That still doesn't prevent its misuse later.

🧵(2/8)
neuroengineering.bsky.social
We don't think stopping research until all ethics are settled is practicable. We share your concern. Ethics is crucial, but often broad and only becomes concrete as technical details emerge through research. Since every technology is double edged, there's never a simple right or wrong.

🧵(1/8)
neuroengineering.bsky.social
Exactly! (Unfortunately) that's the double-edged nature of technological progress. With neurotechnologies in particular we need to prioritize human-centered design that safeguards autonomy, while placing neuroethics and neurorights at the heart of innovation.
neuroengineering.bsky.social
Optimizing stimulation patterns for visual implants 👁️ Check out @mbeyeler.bsky.social's recent study on using spiking activity to adapt stimulation parameters for more stable and reliable perception

#neuroskyence #bci
mbeyeler.bsky.social
👁️🧠 New preprint: We demonstrate the first data-driven neural control framework for a visual cortical implant in a blind human!

TL;DR Deep learning lets us synthesize efficient stimulation patterns that reliably evoke percepts, outperforming conventional calibration.

www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
Diagram showing three ways to control brain activity with a visual prosthesis. The goal is to match a desired pattern of brain responses. One method uses a simple one-to-one mapping, another uses an inverse neural network, and a third uses gradient optimization. Each method produces a stimulation pattern, which is tested in both computer simulations and in the brain of a blind participant with an implant. The figure shows that the neural network and gradient methods reproduce the target brain activity more accurately than the simple mapping.