The Need for New Language
New language tools will drastically improve communication within and around neurotech.
Today, we will talk about the increasing importance of language and frameworks as Neurotech grows. Additionally, we will go over some key terms used to compare solutions and categorise technologies.
Neurotech feels a bit like it’s about to reach the top of the rollercoaster. Maybe I’m being optimistic, but I see more mainstream articles about neurotech every day. I just can’t help feeling like neurotech is about to expand in every direction.
As we leave our cozy niche, we need to take a step back and think things through a bit. Growth and ‘becoming mainstream’ will mean a lot more than us building cool things / going medical- we will need new norms, frameworks, regulations, and language to support our growing numbers and impact.
We need to mature, and accept that things are scaling globally.
Why Is Language Important?
We are nearing the end of the 0-1 stage in neurotech, and need to become ready for the MANY discussions the world will enter into.
With growth comes attention, and with attention comes debates and discussions.
A few points that have already started to come up:
If invasive tech becomes more mainstream, what are the ethical lines we are prepared to draw? Who owns the data? What are the restrictions around limiting interventions? What level of company interaction with an implanted device are we comfortable with? These big questions are already being asked, and we need to sort out some answers. As these discussions proceed, we will need to develop a common language to use when talking about neurotech, and simpler ways to communicate some of the challenging ideas.
In order to properly engage in these discussions, it is vital that we are all on the same page. We need to develop easy analogies, language, and framework that we can use throughout these discussions, and that we can leverage as we grow and expand so that we can all stay on the same page.
Hopefully, beginning with these definitions and frameworks early help increase the literacy around neurotech, and can increase the amount of positive conversations we have. Particularly with the ethical conversations needed for neurotech, having collective language will let more people contribute and can increase the number of positive conversations we have.
Some Key Terms
To set the stage for future conversations, I want to begin by going over some common terms.
You may notice I’ve already been using them in my previous articles- they are ubiquitous to the field and come up often. Highlighting the need for better language and definitions, these terms are often used both as synonyms and to differentiate between different technologies. When in doubt- clarify with the speaker / author.
Similar to the term cyborg (which i wrote about earlier in May), these terms are all regularly debated, and official definitions are inconsistent. I have defined them here mostly using examples, which should be enough to give you a bit of intuition for the different concepts. These terms tend to vary a bit, but I’ve found these definitions work very well both in industry and in academia and should help you get started:
Biosensors:
Record the state of your body and / or your physiology. This can include data recorded from smart watches, implanted continuous glucose monitors, blood pressure systems, or even gait monitoring equipment in a laboratory. Biosensors specifically imply that you are recording biological data. Within Biosensors, I include Wearables and Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs) as 2 distinct groups:
Wearables are any technology that you can wear noninvasively, recording data when you choose to wear it but not recording data when you take it off. Most mass-market biosensors fall into this category. Think: Apple Watch, Oura Ring.
Brain Computer Interfaces is a term commonly used in the NeuroTechnology field and include any technology (invasive or noninvasive) that reads signals from the brain. These signals are then saved as data, either on the recording device or on a computer / server. Think: Muse meditation headset, or a brain implant.
Human Machine Interfaces (HMIs):
An umbrella term, which includes any technology that reads human data and/or communicates this data to computers. All biosensors (BCIs and Wearables) are HMIs, whereas not all HMIs are biosensors. Think: all wearables + all HMIs + smartphones (e.g. GPS).
Non-Invasive vs Invasive:
We also differentiate between solutions by whether they are invasive or non-invasive.
A good rule of thumb to use is that the term invasive usually refers to anything that is not easily removable (e.g. an implant), whereas noninvasive is usually something removable. These categories have a lot of other implications, including patient safety, ethics, infection risk, and whether surgery is required. Additionally, invasive tech often records data at a much higher specificity, such as recording the electrical signals from a small set of neurons at a specific location.
These different factors mean that the different categories are often (but not always) applied in drastically different applications. For example, invasive tech is more often used for medical applications due to the higher risk factors. Noninvasive on the other hand, can be medical or non-medical, and is very application specific.
Although different people still have slightly different definitions for these terms, the definitions above work for me when talking to both industry and academics about 98% of the time.
As new articles come out, our Neurotech Nerds Nexus vocabulary will grow and include more common terms, as well as some new language that I will propose. I’m hoping that this will build up common understanding of key ideas and concepts which we can then apply across our discussions.
On that note, I will end with a question for the reader- What gaps do you see in the language we use in neurotech today? How would clearer language change communication both within and outside of neurotech?
My name is Abby Holland. I am a Product Owner at IDUN Technologies, a consumer neurotech company building EEG-augmented headphones. I have been building in the space since 2018, and have a background in BioMechanical Engineering and Clinical Neuroscience. Follow me on Twitter @holland_neuro for realtime commentary on new neurotech developments.
Love that you're focusing on definitions early. I've been thinking of a BCI as something where you control a device using neural activity. But I think your definition is broader? Speaking of new terms I find Jonathan Walpaw's new term "heksor", and the notion that BCIs create an artificial heksor, useful to think about. I recommend looking up briefly if you haven't seen. Keen to hear what new language you're hoping to add to discussion!