Defining Surgical Terminology and Risk for Brain Computer Interface Technologies

With the emergence of numerous brain computer interfaces (BCI), their form factors, and clinical applications the terminology to describe their clinical deployment and the associated risk has been vague. The terms “minimally invasive” or “non-invasive” have been commonly used, but the risk can vary...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Eric C. Leuthardt, Daniel W. Moran, Tim R. Mullen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-03-01
Series:Frontiers in Neuroscience
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.599549/full
id doaj-fbe45af7ea154d53b2b6c2e72a87c52b
record_format Article
spelling doaj-fbe45af7ea154d53b2b6c2e72a87c52b2021-03-26T05:36:50ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Neuroscience1662-453X2021-03-011510.3389/fnins.2021.599549599549Defining Surgical Terminology and Risk for Brain Computer Interface TechnologiesEric C. Leuthardt0Eric C. Leuthardt1Eric C. Leuthardt2Eric C. Leuthardt3Eric C. Leuthardt4Eric C. Leuthardt5Eric C. Leuthardt6Daniel W. Moran7Daniel W. Moran8Tim R. Mullen9Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United StatesDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United StatesDepartment of Neuroscience, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United StatesDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United StatesCenter for Innovation in Neuroscience and Technology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United StatesBrain Laser Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United StatesDivision of Neurotechnology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United StatesDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United StatesDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United StatesIntheon Labs, San Diego, CA, United StatesWith the emergence of numerous brain computer interfaces (BCI), their form factors, and clinical applications the terminology to describe their clinical deployment and the associated risk has been vague. The terms “minimally invasive” or “non-invasive” have been commonly used, but the risk can vary widely based on the form factor and anatomic location. Thus, taken together, there needs to be a terminology that best accommodates the surgical footprint of a BCI and their attendant risks. This work presents a semantic framework that describes the BCI from a procedural standpoint and its attendant clinical risk profile. We propose extending the common invasive/non-invasive distinction for BCI systems to accommodate three categories in which the BCI anatomically interfaces with the patient and whether or not a surgical procedure is required for deployment: (1) Non-invasive—BCI components do not penetrate the body, (2) Embedded—components are penetrative, but not deeper than the inner table of the skull, and (3) Intracranial –components are located within the inner table of the skull and possibly within the brain volume. Each class has a separate risk profile that should be considered when being applied to a given clinical population. Optimally, balancing this risk profile with clinical need provides the most ethical deployment of these emerging classes of devices. As BCIs gain larger adoption, and terminology becomes standardized, having an improved, more precise language will better serve clinicians, patients, and consumers in discussing these technologies, particularly within the context of surgical procedures.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.599549/fullbrain computer interface (BCI)neuroprostheticsurgical riskterminologyECOGsingle neuron
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Daniel W. Moran
Daniel W. Moran
Tim R. Mullen
spellingShingle Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Daniel W. Moran
Daniel W. Moran
Tim R. Mullen
Defining Surgical Terminology and Risk for Brain Computer Interface Technologies
Frontiers in Neuroscience
brain computer interface (BCI)
neuroprosthetic
surgical risk
terminology
ECOG
single neuron
author_facet Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Eric C. Leuthardt
Daniel W. Moran
Daniel W. Moran
Tim R. Mullen
author_sort Eric C. Leuthardt
title Defining Surgical Terminology and Risk for Brain Computer Interface Technologies
title_short Defining Surgical Terminology and Risk for Brain Computer Interface Technologies
title_full Defining Surgical Terminology and Risk for Brain Computer Interface Technologies
title_fullStr Defining Surgical Terminology and Risk for Brain Computer Interface Technologies
title_full_unstemmed Defining Surgical Terminology and Risk for Brain Computer Interface Technologies
title_sort defining surgical terminology and risk for brain computer interface technologies
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Neuroscience
issn 1662-453X
publishDate 2021-03-01
description With the emergence of numerous brain computer interfaces (BCI), their form factors, and clinical applications the terminology to describe their clinical deployment and the associated risk has been vague. The terms “minimally invasive” or “non-invasive” have been commonly used, but the risk can vary widely based on the form factor and anatomic location. Thus, taken together, there needs to be a terminology that best accommodates the surgical footprint of a BCI and their attendant risks. This work presents a semantic framework that describes the BCI from a procedural standpoint and its attendant clinical risk profile. We propose extending the common invasive/non-invasive distinction for BCI systems to accommodate three categories in which the BCI anatomically interfaces with the patient and whether or not a surgical procedure is required for deployment: (1) Non-invasive—BCI components do not penetrate the body, (2) Embedded—components are penetrative, but not deeper than the inner table of the skull, and (3) Intracranial –components are located within the inner table of the skull and possibly within the brain volume. Each class has a separate risk profile that should be considered when being applied to a given clinical population. Optimally, balancing this risk profile with clinical need provides the most ethical deployment of these emerging classes of devices. As BCIs gain larger adoption, and terminology becomes standardized, having an improved, more precise language will better serve clinicians, patients, and consumers in discussing these technologies, particularly within the context of surgical procedures.
topic brain computer interface (BCI)
neuroprosthetic
surgical risk
terminology
ECOG
single neuron
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.599549/full
work_keys_str_mv AT ericcleuthardt definingsurgicalterminologyandriskforbraincomputerinterfacetechnologies
AT ericcleuthardt definingsurgicalterminologyandriskforbraincomputerinterfacetechnologies
AT ericcleuthardt definingsurgicalterminologyandriskforbraincomputerinterfacetechnologies
AT ericcleuthardt definingsurgicalterminologyandriskforbraincomputerinterfacetechnologies
AT ericcleuthardt definingsurgicalterminologyandriskforbraincomputerinterfacetechnologies
AT ericcleuthardt definingsurgicalterminologyandriskforbraincomputerinterfacetechnologies
AT ericcleuthardt definingsurgicalterminologyandriskforbraincomputerinterfacetechnologies
AT danielwmoran definingsurgicalterminologyandriskforbraincomputerinterfacetechnologies
AT danielwmoran definingsurgicalterminologyandriskforbraincomputerinterfacetechnologies
AT timrmullen definingsurgicalterminologyandriskforbraincomputerinterfacetechnologies
_version_ 1724202833942675456