---
title: "Brain-Computer Interfaces "
description: "The most recent advancement in medical devices comes from brain-computer interface (BCI) technology, which integrates technology directly into the human body…"
url: https://www.independentpress.com/article/brain-computer-interfaces
date: 2026-07-30
categories: ["Biotechnology"]
author: "Isaac Paul Oommen"
---

# Brain-Computer Interfaces 

![Brain-Computer Interfaces](https://images.ctfassets.net/ewtdlsoyixc1/6SYxuOBXcZOZgHyMMqaKn7/3bf7f315b3c19cf493e58cbd58d4d4f1/premium_photo-1682124672287-522dc636dd83.avif)

Health-tracking technology has been around since the 1980s, when the first consumer heart rate monitors let athletes measure metrics that once required a laboratory. Decades later, wearable technology now powers devices that people use every day, like the Apple Watch and the Oura Ring. The most recent advancement in medical devices comes from brain-computer interface (BCI) technology, which integrates technology directly into the human body providing a direct communication link between the electrical activity in the brain and exogenous devices.

BCIs aim to reshape how humans interact with technology. The devices—which include scalp sensors and implanted chips—can read and translate neural signals into tangible outputs, such as computer control or robotic limb movement, using thoughts to bypass nerves or muscles. The BCI use case is especially promising for individuals with neurological conditions because of the potential to restore speech and movement. 

The goal of modern BCI applications is to pick up signals from the brain and translate them into real-world sensory feedback. The process starts with a signal acquisition using invasive (surgical implants) or non-invasive methods (wearables, external sensors). The signals are then processed to remove noise and derive actionable features. The cleaned signal is translated by machine learning technology to create a command. Finally, the command is sent to an external device to create real-world feedback. 

**History **

The evolution of BCI technology can be separated into 3 periods: _1) First neural measurement_ - The first recording of human brain waves using an [electroencephalogram](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/eeg/about/pac-20393875) (EEG) was conducted by German psychiatrist [Hans Berger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Berger) in 1924. Subsequent experiments in the 1960s were able to interpret brain waves using innovative, albeit bulky and highly sensitive equipment. 2) _Introduction of BCI_ – In 1973, computer scientist [Jacques Vidal](https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.bb.02.060173.001105) demonstrated that interpreted EEG signals could be used to control a computer cursor, coining the technology brain-computer interface (BCI). Over a decade later, [Stevo Bozinovski](https://spectrum.ieee.org/brain-waves-control-a-robot) used similar technology to execute the first successful control of a physical object (a mobile robot) using human brain signals. _3) Clinical validation_ – The [BrainGate project](https://www.braingate.org/) began in 2000 as a pioneering consortium of researchers developing BCIs to restore key functions such as communication and mobility for people with paralysis. Through a series of multi-year clinical trials, the project was able to demonstrate that BCI technology could restore movement in individuals who had been paralyzed and that the technology could be safely implanted in patients yielding long-term results. BrainGate is still active and is credited with supplying early clinical validation that paved the way for the current commercialization era in the BCI sector. 

**Current Market Outlook **

The modern-day BCI sector has shifted from academic research and clinical projects towards a push for commercialization. [Morgan Stanley analysts](https://www.forbes.com/sites/naveenrao/2024/10/10/400-billion-reasons-to-believe-in-brain-computer-interfaces/) have estimated the total addressable BCI market to be roughly $400B, demonstrating a promising investment opportunity to back the future of medical technology. Significant growth potential exists with the market expected to increase 256% from 2022 to 2030. Non-invasive wireless EEG headsets hit the market in 2010 and are currently the most common form of BCI technology. Companies creating invasive BCI technology are more complex both in terms of research and development (R&D) and they regulatory scrutiny they face and therefore require significant upfront investment funding. The highest profile companies in the field include [Blackrock Neurotech](https://blackrockneurotech.com/)(founded in 2008), [Neuralink](https://neuralink.com/) (founded in 2016), and [Syncron](https://www.syncron.com/) (founded 2012). Invasive BCI companies are funding clinical trials and R&D hoping to push the boundaries of miniaturization and minimally invasive implants.

BCI companies have raised a collective $3.57 B in funding from venture capital and private equity firms over the last ten years. Prominent venture capital firms investing in the space include [Khosla Ventures](https://www.khoslaventures.com/) (holding portfolio stakes in Synchron, [Openwater](https://www.openwater.health/), [Kernel](https://www.kernel.com/), and [Science Corporation](https://science.xyz/)), [Double Point Ventures](https://www.doublepointventures.com/) (who led the $200M series D financing round for Synchron), and [Lightspeed Venture Partners](https://lsvp.com/) (who participated in the $240M Series C funding round for Science Corporation). Several high-profile billionaires have also been investing in the space, betting that BCIs are the next frontier in neurological care. Among them are Elon Musk, who financed the early days of Neuralink, Jeff Bezos & Bill Gates who co-invested in Synchron, and Peter Thiel, who has heavily invested in Blackrock Neurotech. The [US Department of Health and Human Services](https://www.hhs.gov/) is ranked as a top institutional investor by volume through its funding of clinical-grade developers like Blackrock Neurotech and [Paradromics](https://paradromics.com/). The US government has also funded Paradromics through [DARPA’s Neural Engineering System Design (NESD) program](https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/neural-engineering-system-design), which is a research initiative launched to develop a neural interface that can convert brain signals into binary code.

**Key Players**

Given the relatively recent push for commercialization, a majority of BCI companies are still considered start-ups. As of April 3, 2026, 281 BCI companies operate across the US, UK, Brazil, South Africa, and China. A handful of them illustrate the range of approaches that the field has focused on. _Neuralink_ is arguably the most well-known BCI company in the world and the only company in the sector to reach decacorn (>$10 billion valuation) status. Its system is built around a chip called the [N1 Implant](https://www.npr.org/2024/01/30/1227850900/elon-musk-neuralink-implant-clinical-trial), which is placed inside a surgically created recess in the skull and connected to fine threads that carry thousands of electrodes into the cerebral cortex. A surgical robot is required to insert the electrodes into brain tissue, targeting individual neuron signals. Machine learning models decode the brain waves and translate them into computer commands for a screen or device. These translations are then transmitted wirelessly over Bluetooth and executed in the real world. What makes Neuralink unique is less the presence of any single component than the fact that it commits to highly invasive technology with the belief that direct cortical access produces a better outcome than less invasive methods. 

Synchron has taken the opposite stance on invasiveness. Rather than operating inside the skull, the company threads its device through the blood vessels, using the vascular system as its delivery route into the brain. Their core technology is the [Stentrode](https://synchron.com/technology), a self-expanding mesh stent-like tube embedded with sensors that lodges in a blood vessel near the motor cortex and reads neural activity from inside the vessel wall without direct contact with brain tissue. From there, an implant placed under the skin in the chest—the internal receiver and transmitter—wirelessly picks up motor commands recorded by the Stentrode, and an external signal processing unit converts those commands into inputs a computer or phone can turn into real world applications. Synchron’s strategy of avoiding brain surgery could lead to expedited regulatory approval and an increased pool of patients willing to consider the procedure. However, since the signal does not come from direct contact with the brain, signal resolution is not as precise as direct, open-brain implants.

Blackrock Neurotech built its technology on the [Utah Array](https://blackrockneurotech.com/products/utah-array/), which is one of the pioneering tools in BCI research and technology. The Utah Array is a microelectrode device—consisting of roughly 100 rigid silicon micro-needles—implanted directly into the brain’s motor cortex. Blackrock Neurotech’s flagship [MoveAgain](https://blackrockneurotech.com/insights/blackrock-neurotech-moveagain-brain-computer-interface-system/) device received [Breakthrough Device designation](https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/how-study-and-market-your-device/breakthrough-devices-program) from the [Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021](https://blackrockneurotech.com/insights/blackrock-neurotechs-moveagain-brain-computer-interface-system-receives-breakthrough-device-designation-from-the-fda/). In addition, the company's [NeuroPort Array](https://blackrockneurotech.com/products/neuroport-electrode/) processes data acquisition and is already in use at more than a thousand research institutions worldwide. While Neuralink and Synchron are proving their systems in small patient cohorts, Blackrock's hardware is already embedded across the academic institutions that train BCI research, giving it real-world usage data that newer entrants have not yet accumulated.

**Risks**

The integration of BCI technology into the human brain introduces significant cybersecurity risk. An attack could come in the form of a tampered signal in an individual device or poisoned training data, which would affect all devices using said model. A passive form of attack could include brain tapping—the interception of neural signals to gradually shape a person’s emotions, beliefs, and perceptions over time. Given that there is no dramatic shift in the person’s life, it would be difficult for the patient or physicians to notice the change. In the hands of a corrupt government or terrorist group, this technology could be used to compromise influential individuals such as diplomats or senior officials, but also to manipulate public opinion on a large scale. 

An active form of attack would be more overt and exigently dangerous. Manipulating signals can be used as a form of mind control to compel people to act against their will. The implications of this in terrorism alone are enough to raise serious ethical and national security concerns. A compromised individual could be directed to leak classified information, sabotage their allies, or carry out violent acts with no memory of doing so or evidence of coercion. 

Most current BCIs are read-only, decoding motor intent from a subset of a few thousand neurons in the brain. However, the sector is rapidly moving towards read-write systems that purview tens of thousands of neurons. As the technology becomes more complex and commercially available, strict protection methods must be put in place to mitigate cybersecurity risk. At the device level, BCI technologies should operate with transparency into how neural data is acquired, processed, and stored. Companies should invest in robust cybersecurity measures like end-to-end encryption of neural data as well as anonymization strategies so that intercepted data cannot be traced to any individual device. At a macro level, government oversight at every step of the BCI adoption process is crucial to ensure that companies are acting in patients’ best interests and are acting in accordance with safety and ethical standards. The most underappreciated safeguard to cybersecurity is education; patients, clinicians, and policymakers require a working understanding of how BCIs function and their vulnerabilities so that they can act accordingly.

**Conclusion**

Decades of research have gone into proving that neural signals can be decoded reliably enough to move a cursor or drive a robotic arm, and that implants can sit safely in human tissue for years while continuously working. Having successfully proven those milestones, billions in private funding have poured into BCI companies with the goal of turning theoretical research into commercially available devices. The BCI industry is at the early stage of adoption focusing on trials and real-world uses to make BCI a standard technology for those with motor and cognitive disabilities.

While there is still plenty of uncertainty surrounding regulation and approval pathways for this new class of medical devices, initiatives like the FDA Breakthrough Device Program and the founding of the FDA’s [Office of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices](https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/cdrh-offices/oht5-office-neurological-and-physical-medicine-devices-office-product-evaluation-and-quality) in May 2019 have helped to accelerate the process for manufacturers. Companies like Blackrock Neurotech, Neuralink, and Synchron are pursuing different approaches to apply BCI technology in patients. Competition between companies will fund the trials needed to determine which versions of BCI technology work best and which BCI technology will eventually be commercialized to reach the masses. A decade from now, it may not be uncommon for local hospitals to offer BCI technology that can restore speech or movement for individuals affected by paralysis.