Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Perception of Brain-Computer Interface Implantation Surgery for Motor, Sensory, and Autonomic Restoration in Spinal Cord Injury and Stroke

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Most stroke and spinal cord injury patients would accept surgical implantation of a brain-computer interface even if it restores only basic motor, sensory, or bladder and bowel functions, and willingness does not depend on disability…

desk verdict Useful descriptive survey on willingness for invasive ECoG BCI, but the flatness claim rests on the wrong statistical test. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11572 v1 pith:ILIG6GAI submitted 2025-07-15 cs.HC cs.CYphysics.soc-ph

Derrick Lin , Tracie Tran , Shravan Thaploo , Jose Gabrielle E. Matias , Joy E. Pixley , Zoran Nenadic , An H. Do This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CYphysics.soc-ph
keywords Brain-ComputerInterface(BCI)Electrocorticography(ECoG)SpinalCordInjury(SCI)StrokeRehabilitationSurgicalWillingnessFunctionalRestorationPatientPerceptionNeuroethics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Surveying 71 people with chronic stroke or spinal cord injury, this paper asked whether they would undergo surgery to implant an electrocorticography-based brain-computer interface (BCI) if it could restore motor, sensory, and autonomic functions. Most participants said they would be 'very likely' or 'moderately likely' to have the surgery even when the promised restoration was basic, such as grasp and release, standing, or bladder sensation. The authors report that willingness did not correlate with the degree of functional recovery offered, with participants' rehabilitation priorities, or with their level of disability. They conclude that first-generation commercial invasive BCIs may not need extensive functions to gain adoption, while cautioning that such uniformly high enthusiasm raises the risk of medical exploitation and demands careful informed-consent frameworks.

What carries the argument

The central instrument is the survey itself, which asked participants to rate, on a four-point scale, whether they would undergo surgery for an ECoG electrode grid at each of several incremental levels of restoration (for example, grasp and release alone, then adding fine finger control, then arm control; or standing, then walking at constant speed, then walking at various speeds, then making turns). Willingness comparisons across groups used a relative-preference statistic, defined as the ratio of willing to unwilling responses between two groups, with a Haldane-Anscombe zero-cell correction and 95 percent confidence intervals computed on the log scale. This statistic is what the authors use to test whether injury severity, perceived importance of a function, or prior BCI knowledge changed the willing-to-unwilling ratio; their claim of no correlation is the absence of statistically significant shifts in these ratios.

What would settle it

A replication in a population-based, nationally representative sample that randomly varies the offered restoration level and states realistic surgical risk and failure rates would falsify the claim if willingness fell sharply for the most basic offers or tracked disability severity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that stroke and spinal cord injury participants are broadly willing to undergo surgery to implant ECoG grids for BCI use if basic functions can be restored, and that this willingness is flat across patients: it does not rise when more complete functions are offered, nor does it vary with how severely disabled a person is or which functions they consider most important. The authors support this with survey responses showing that 70 to 98 percent of participants were at least moderately willing to undergo implantation across motor, sensory, and autonomic restoration scenarios, with the highest enthusiasm for urination and defecation control (98 percent) and the lowest for basic grasp and release (70 percent). They interpret this as evidence that even relatively simple or narrowly focused implantable BCIs would find a receptive user base, and that the potential market could include people with moderate as well as severe disability. They also note the ethical corollary: the same unbounded enthusiasm could make patients vulnerable to premature procedures or unfounded promises, so clear clinical guidelines and careful consent frameworks are essential.

Load-bearing premise

The recruited sample—people already engaged with neurology clinics, rehabilitation centers, and support groups, incentivized with a $10 gift card—is representative of the broader chronic stroke and spinal cord injury populations, so the high willingness and absence of correlation would generalize beyond this self-selected group.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • First-generation commercial invasive BCIs could be built around basic functional targets, such as hand grasp and release, standing, or bladder control, and still find a receptive user base.
  • BCI developers should not assume the market is limited to the most severely disabled, because participants with moderate disability expressed equal willingness.
  • Bi-directional BCIs that restore both movement and sensation, especially grasp and somatic sensation, are of substantial interest to potential users.
  • Restoring bladder and bowel control is a high-priority, technically open niche with essentially no existing BCI systems, and it merits research investment.
  • The uniformly high enthusiasm signals a need for consent frameworks that guard against over-optimistic adoption and surgical exploitation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The flat willingness across functional levels could reflect a ceiling effect: in a small, self-selected sample where baseline willingness is already near maximum, the survey may lack power to detect real preferences for more complete restoration, and a discrete-choice experiment with explicit risk-benefit trade-offs would resolve this.
  • The results hint that hope or perceived desperation, rather than rational cost-benefit calculation, may drive adoption intent; a follow-up measuring health literacy, risk perception, and decision-making style could separate these drivers.
  • If the finding replicates in a representative sample, regulators and payers may need to plan for demand from a broader population than the severely disabled, including ambulatory stroke survivors and moderately impaired patients, which would reshape surgical candidacy and reimbursement criteria.
  • The strong interest in sexual function restoration, though based on a small number of open-ended responses, points toward an under-explored BCI application with its own technical and ethical complexities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a survey of 71 chronic stroke and SCI participants on their willingness to undergo ECoG-based BCI implantation for different levels of motor, sensory, and autonomic restoration. The authors report high overall willingness, with raw willingness percentages increasing as more functions are offered, and they conclude that willingness is uncorrelated with the level of functional recovery, disability severity, and rehabilitation priorities. They argue that first-generation invasive BCIs may not need extensive functions to gain adoption, while cautioning about overenthusiasm and exploitation risks.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper provides valuable stakeholder-perspective evidence for BCI developers and neuroethicists, addressing a gap in the literature on sensory restoration and bladder/bowel BCIs. The study uses a clinical sample rather than a general-public convenience sample, includes both SCI and stroke participants, and reports concrete concern categories that could inform device design and consent processes. However, the central null claim about restoration level is not established by the presented analyses, so the practical implication for first-generation BCIs is currently unsupported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4 / Abstract] The conclusion that there was no correlation between willingness and the level of functional recovery is not supported because no within-subject paired test across restoration levels is reported. The only evidence cited is Fig. 3, a stacked-bar plot without confidence intervals or test statistics, while Section 3.3 reports monotonically increasing proportions (70% to 82% for upper extremity, 79% to 92% for lower extremity, and 73% to 98% for sensation/autonomic). A paired ordinal test such as McNemar-Bowker or a mixed-effects ordinal model is needed to justify the null claim. This is load-bearing for the abstract and for the Discussion's implication that first-generation commercial invasive BCIs may not need extensive functions to garner adoption.
  2. [Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4] The relative-preference analyses compare more/less severe groups or high/low perceived-importance groups at a fixed restoration level using Eq. (1) and Table 1. They do not estimate the association between restoration level and willingness. The Discussion's statement that 'willingness to undergo surgery was not influenced by the promise of more restorative features within the motor and sensory domains' therefore rests on an absence-of-significance argument without testing the relevant within-subject contrast. Additionally, the dichotomization of both willingness and severity/importance loses ordinal information, and no multiple-comparison correction is applied across the many forest plots.
  3. [Section 3.5 and Figs. 4-9] The null conclusions about disability severity and perceived importance are presented as 'did not significantly influence,' but the subgroup sample sizes are very small (e.g., ASIA A-B versus C-D groups in Table 2; some per-level n's as low as n=11 in Appendix a4), and the Haldane-Anscombe correction is applied to handle zero cells. With such small samples, failure to reject is weak evidence. The manuscript should report effect sizes and confidence-interval widths, or explicitly frame these as exploratory null findings rather than strong evidence of no association.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.3.2] In the sentence following Eq. (3), there is a typo: 'z α is defiend' should be 'z α is defined.'
  2. [Section 3.3] The percentages for willingness are reported without stating whether the denominator is all 71 participants or only those for whom the function is applicable; please clarify the denominator for each percentage.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption refers to participants' level of disability and perceived importance, but the figure shows willingness responses; the caption and legend appear mismatched and should be corrected.
  4. [Table 2] The 'Both' column lists percentages that sum to 100% for each row, which is confusing for a single participant; consider showing raw counts for the 'Both' group instead of percentages.
  5. [Discussion, autonomic restoration paragraph] The statement that 'there are no reported BCI systems that attempt to address bowel and bladder functions at the time of this report' should be supported by a citation or qualified as 'to our knowledge.'
  6. [Discussion, market inference paragraph] The inference that participants with even moderate disability would be willing is speculative given the sample contains no Rankin 0 or 1 participants; this statement should be softened or supported by subgroup analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical survey whose conclusions are interpretations of collected responses, not quantities derived from their own inputs by construction.

full rationale

This manuscript reports a survey of stroke and SCI participants' willingness to undergo ECoG-based BCI implantation. The central quantities (willingness rates, relative preferences, perceived importance) are measured responses, not derived from the hypotheses. Equation 1 defines relative preference as a ratio of observed cell counts; it is a descriptive/analytic tool applied to independent survey answers, not a fitted parameter later renamed a prediction. The paper's self-citations ([6], [7], both from the same group) are used only as examples of ECoG-based BCI feasibility for gait and sensation in the Introduction; they are not load-bearing for the survey's conclusions. The conclusion that willingness did not correlate with level of functional recovery is under-supported because Section 3.4 cites only Fig 3 and does not describe a paired or within-subject statistical test across restoration levels, and the abstract's 'no correlation' phrasing overstates what a stacked-bar comparison can show; however, this is a statistical inference/validity concern, not a circularity of the kind defined here. No equation reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, and no cited uniqueness theorem or prior work by the authors is invoked to force the conclusion. The finding is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study's central conclusions rest on self-reported clinical classifications, hypothetical scenario comprehension, and a volunteer sample. The analysis uses hand-chosen dichotomization thresholds for severity and willingness; no computational model parameters are fitted. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Dichotomization threshold for 'more severe' vs 'less severe' = ASIA A/B vs C/D; Rankin 4/5 vs 2/3
    Hand-chosen cutoffs converting ordinal severity scales into binary groups. Changing these thresholds could alter the relative preference estimates and conclusions about severity effects.
  • Dichotomization threshold for 'more willing' vs 'less willing' = Very/Moderately likely vs Slightly/Not at all likely
    Hand-chosen cutoffs on the Likert-type willingness items used for all relative preference calculations. Alternative collapsing choices could change results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Self-reported ASIA and Modified Rankin Scale scores accurately reflect clinical impairment
    Participants selected their own ASIA/Rankin category; no clinical verification was performed. This underpins all severity-stratified analyses in Methods 2.3.1.
  • domain assumption Participants understood the hypothetical ECoG BCI descriptions and could form stable, informed willingness judgments
    Willingness results depend on participants interpreting the written and visual scenarios; no comprehension check was administered, as described in Methods 2.2.
  • domain assumption The volunteer sample is representative of the chronic stroke and SCI populations
    Recruitment via specialty clinics, support groups, and outreach, with a gift-card incentive; the authors acknowledge potential participation bias in the Discussion. If the sample is systematically more receptive, the high willingness and null correlations may not generalize.
  • standard math Relative preference risk ratios with Haldane-Anscombe correction are appropriate for these binary willingness comparisons
    The correction avoids undefined ratios at zero cells, but the method reduces ordinal data to binary and ignores within-subject pairing across restoration levels, as used in Methods 2.3.2.
  • domain assumption Survey skip logic and 'Don't know/Decline' handling do not bias the analyzed subgroups
    Different denominators across questions could introduce composition differences; the paper assumes exclusions are ignorable, as stated in Methods 2.3.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Perception of Brain-Computer Interface Implantation Surgery for Motor, Sensory, and Autonomic Restoration in Spinal Cord Injury and Stroke." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ILIG6GAI

@misc{pith2026250711572,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Perception of Brain-Computer Interface Implantation Surgery for Motor, Sensory, and Autonomic Restoration in Spinal Cord Injury and Stroke},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ILIG6GAI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11572}
}
read the original abstract

(Abridged) Stroke and SCI are conditions that can significantly impact the QoL of survivors in both the physical and psychosocial domains. Both diseases often result in significant motor and sensory impairments that are not fully reversible despite current available therapies. Invasive BCIs have emerged as a promising means to bypass the site of injury and potentially restore motor and sensory function. However, to maximize the utility and participant satisfaction with such technology, participants' willingness to embrace BCIs must be assessed, and placed in context with functional goals and rehabilitative priorities. Hence, we conducted a survey of a cohort of stroke (n=33), SCI (n=37), and both (n=1) participants regarding their receptiveness to invasive ECoG-based BCIs as well as to assess their goals for functional rehabilitation. Overall, participants indicated a high level of willingness to undergo surgery to implant ECoG grids for BCI technology if basic motor functions, including upper extremity, gait, bowel/bladder, and sensory function were restored. There was no correlation between participant willingness to undergo a prospective BCI implantation and the level of functional recovery offered by the BCI. Similarly, there was no correlation between willingness to undergo surgery and the participants' perceived rehabilitative priorities and level of disability. These findings indicate that participants were interested in invasive BCI technology even if only basic functions can be restored, regardless of their level of disability and their rehabilitative priorities. Such observations imply that first generation commercial invasive BCIs may not need extensive functions to garner adoption. Conversely, it also raises a concern that participants from the stroke and SCI cohort may be overly enthusiastic about such technology, which poses potential risks for medical exploitation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol

    Shih, J.J., Krusienski, D.J., Wolpaw, J.R.: Brain-computer interfaces in medicine. In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 87, pp. 268–279 (2012). Elsevier

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Scientific Reports14(1), 11491 (2024)

    Komeiji, S., Mitsuhashi, T., Iimura, Y., Suzuki, H., Sugano, H., Shinoda, K., Tanaka, T.: Feasibility of decoding covert speech in ecog with a transformer trained on overt speech. Scientific Reports14(1), 11491 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Science Advances9(23), 0478 (2023) 18

    Liu, Y., Zhao, Z., Xu, M., Yu, H., Zhu, Y., Zhang, J., Bu, L., Zhang, X., Lu, J., Li, Y.,et al.: Decoding and synthesizing tonal language speech from brain activity. Science Advances9(23), 0478 (2023) 18

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Nature620(7976), 1037– 1046 (2023)

    Metzger, S.L., Littlejohn, K.T., Silva, A.B., Moses, D.A., Seaton, M.P., Wang, R., Dougherty, M.E., Liu, J.R., Wu, P., Berger, M.A.,et al.: A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control. Nature620(7976), 1037– 1046 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Nature618(7963), 126–133 (2023)

    Lorach, H., Galvez, A., Spagnolo, V., Martel, F., Karakas, S., Intering, N., Vat, M., Faivre, O., Harte, C., Komi, S.,et al.: Walking naturally after spinal cord injury using a brain–spine interface. Nature618(7963), 126–133 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    In: 2024 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp

    Lim, J., Wang, P.T., Sohn, W.J., Serrano-Amenos, C., Ibrahim, M., Lin, D., Thaploo, S., Shaw, S.J., Armacost, M., Gong, H.,et al.: Early feasibility of an embedded bi-directional brain-computer interface for ambulation. In: 2024 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 1–5 (2024). IEEE

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Real-Time Brain-Computer Interface Control of Walking Exoskeleton with Bilateral Sensory Feedback

    Lim, J., Wang, P.T., Sohn, W.J., Lin, D., Thaploo, S., Bashford, L., Bjanes, D., Nguyen, A., Gong, H., Armacost, M., et al.: Real-time brain-computer interface control of walking exoskeleton with bilateral sensory feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00219 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Journal of neural engineering13(4), 046019 (2016)

    Degenhart, A.D., Eles, J., Dum, R., Mischel, J.L., Smalianchuk, I., Endler, B., Ashmore, R.C., Tyler-Kabara, E.C., Hatsopoulos, N.G., Wang, W.,et al.: Histo- logical evaluation of a chronically-implanted electrocorticographic electrode grid in a non-human primate. Journal of neural engineering13(4), 046019 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    PloS one17(11), 0275454 (2022)

    Sattler, S., Pietralla, D.: Public attitudes towards neurotechnology: Findings from two experiments concerning brain stimulation devices (bsds) and brain-computer interfaces (bcis). PloS one17(11), 0275454 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    AI & SOCIETY, 1–10 (2021)

    Monasterio Astobiza, A., Rodriguez Arias-Vailhen, D., Aus ´ ın, T., Toboso, M., Aparicio, M., L´ opez, D.: Attitudes about brain–computer interface (bci) technol- ogy among spanish rehabilitation professionals. AI & SOCIETY, 1–10 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    NanoEthics, 1–11 (2021)

    Schmid, J.R., Friedrich, O., Kessner, S., Jox, R.: Thoughts unlocked by tech- nology—a survey in germany about brain-computer interfaces. NanoEthics, 1–11 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Aging clinical and experimental research34(4), 869–879 (2022)

    K¨ onig, T., Pigliautile, M.,´Aguila, O., Arambarri, J., Christophorou, C., Colombo, M., Constantinides, A., Curia, R., Dankl, K., Hanke, S.,et al.: User experi- ence and acceptance of a device assisting persons with dementia in daily life: a multicenter field study. Aging cli...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology6(3), 225–242 (2011) 19

    Martin, J.K., Martin, L.G., Stumbo, N.J., Morrill, J.H.: The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology6(3), 225–242 (2011) 19

    2011

  6. [14]

    Journal of neurotrauma21(10), 1371–1383 (2004)

    Anderson, K.D.: Targeting recovery: priorities of the spinal cord-injured popula- tion. Journal of neurotrauma21(10), 1371–1383 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    Journal of rehabilitation research and development39(6), 659–670 (2002)

    Brown-Triolo, D.L., Roach, M.J., Nelson, K., Triolo, R.J.: Consumer perspectives on mobility: implications for neuroprosthesis design. Journal of rehabilitation research and development39(6), 659–670 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    Journal of neurotrauma29(8), 1548–1555 (2012)

    Simpson, L.A., Eng, J.J., Hsieh, J.T., Wolfe, Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Evidence (SCIRE) Research Team, D.L.: The health and life priorities of individ- uals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Journal of neurotrauma29(8), 1548–1555 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    The Lancet Neurology11(3), 209 (2012)

    Pollock, A., St George, B., Fenton, M., Firkins, L.: Top ten research priorities relating to life after stroke. The Lancet Neurology11(3), 209 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Research Synthesis Methods11(6), 913–919 (2020)

    Weber, F., Knapp, G., Ickstadt, K., Kundt, G., Glass, ¨A.: Zero-cell corrections in random-effects meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods11(6), 913–919 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Frontiers in Neurology13, 941256 (2022)

    Lam, C.Y., Koljonen, P.A., Yip, C.C.H., Su, I.Y.W., Hu, Y., Wong, Y.W., Che- ung, K.M.C.: Functional recovery priorities and community rehabilitation service preferences of spinal cord injury individuals and caregivers of chinese ethnicity and cultural background. Frontiers in...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Journal of neurotrauma33(21), 1958–1968 (2016)

    Lo, C., Tran, Y., Anderson, K., Craig, A., Middleton, J.: Functional priorities in persons with spinal cord injury: using discrete choice experiments to determine preferences. Journal of neurotrauma33(21), 1958–1968 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Smart Health23, 100264 (2022)

    Dutta, D., Sen, S., Aruchamy, S., Mandal, S.: Prevalence of post-stroke upper extremity paresis in developing countries and significance of m-health for reha- bilitation after stroke-a review. Smart Health23, 100264 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Expert review of neurotherapeutics 7(10), 1417–1436 (2007)

    Eng, J.J., Tang, P.-F.: Gait training strategies to optimize walking ability in people with stroke: a synthesis of the evidence. Expert review of neurotherapeutics 7(10), 1417–1436 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Disability and Rehabilitation45(19), 3059–3069 (2023)

    Purton, J., Sim, J., Hunter, S.M.: Stroke survivors’ views on their priorities for upper-limb recovery and the availability of therapy services after stroke: a longitu- dinal, phenomenological study. Disability and Rehabilitation45(19), 3059–3069 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Spinal cord46(7), 500–506 (2008)

    Ditunno, P., Patricxrfk, M., Stineman, M., Ditunno, J.: Who wants to walk? preferences for recovery after sci: a longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Spinal cord46(7), 500–506 (2008)

    2008

  17. [25]

    Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation91(4), 639–643 (2010)

    Mountain, A.D., Kirby, R.L., MacLeod, D.A., Thompson, K.: Rates and predic- tors of manual and powered wheelchair use for persons with stroke: a retrospective 20 study in a canadian rehabilitation center. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation91(4), 639–643 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Terms of Use

    Ekiz, T., ¨Ozbudak Demir, S., ¨Ozgirgin, N.: Wheelchair appropriateness in patients with spinal cord injury: a turkish experience. Spinal cord52(12), 901–904 (2014) 21 Appendix A Survey Top of Form University of California, Irvine Study Information Sheet Functional Priorities ...

    2014

  19. [27]

    □Spinal Cord Injury □Stroke □Don’t know/Decline to Answer

    Please select the type of injury you have. □Spinal Cord Injury □Stroke □Don’t know/Decline to Answer

  20. [28]

    If known, what is your type of injury? □Tetraplegia (Unable to move/feel both arms and legs) □Paraplegia (Unable to move/feel lower half of body) □I do not know/Decline to Answer

  21. [29]

    23 □Grade A: Complete: No sensory or motor function is preserved in the sacral segments S4-S5

    Please indicate your level of injury on the ASIA Impairment Scale(if known). 23 □Grade A: Complete: No sensory or motor function is preserved in the sacral segments S4-S5. □Grade B: Incomplete: Sensory but not motor function is preserved below the neurological level and includ...

  22. [30]

    If known, what is your level of impairment? □C1 □C2 □C3 24 □C4 □C5 □C6 □C7 □C8 □T1 □T2 □T3 □T4 □T5 □T6 □T7 □T8 □T9 □T10 □T11 □T12 □L1 □L2 □L3 □L4 □L5 □S1 □S2 □S3 □S4-5 □I do not know/Decline to Answer

  23. [31]

    □0 - No symptoms □1 - No significant disability

    Please indicate your current level of disability on the scale below.Please select the description that best describes you. □0 - No symptoms □1 - No significant disability. Able to carry out all usual activities, despite some symptoms. □2 - Slight disability. Able to look after...

  24. [32]

    □I use a walking aid such as a cane or leg brace □I use a wheelchair □Other The next few questions are about your opinions on brain-computer interfaces

    Please indicate your current type of walking aid. □I use a walking aid such as a cane or leg brace □I use a wheelchair □Other The next few questions are about your opinions on brain-computer interfaces

  25. [33]

    This allows a previous motor function or sensation to be restored by bypassing the site of injury and recovering thought control

    Have you heard of brain-computer interfaces prior to this survey? □Yes □No Brain-computer interfaces seek to restore movement or sensation by connecting a person’s brain to an external device. This allows a previous motor function or sensation to be restored by bypassing the s...

  26. [34]

    One of the current methods to do this is electrocorticography (ECoG)

    How likely are you to consider surgery for a fully implantable brain-computer interface system that would be approximately the size of a pacemaker? 26 □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely In order for brain-computer interfaces to work, brain wave...

  27. [35]

    Please indicate how important regaining arm or upper body function is to you. □Very Important □Moderately Important □Slightly Important □Not At All Important □Not Applicable 27 In this setup, an ECoG electrode grid is implanted surgically in the brain to record electrical acti...

  28. [36]

    How likely would you consider surgery to implant an electrode grid if basic grasp/release ability can be restored? □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely □Not Applicable/Decline to Answer

  29. [37]

    How likely would you consider surgery to implant an electrode grid if fine control of fingers, in addition to basic grasp/release ability, can be restored? □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely □Not Applicable/Decline to Answer

  30. [38]

    How likely would you consider surgery to implant an electrode grid if fine control of your arm, fine control of your fingers, and basic grasp/release ability can all be restored? □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely □Not Applicable/Decline to Answer 29

  31. [39]

    Please indicate how important regaining the ability to walk is to you. □Very Important □Moderately Important □Slightly Important □Not At All Important □Not Applicable In this setup, an ECoG electrode grid is implanted surgically in the brain to record electrical activity. The ...

  32. [40]

    How likely would you consider surgery to implant an electrode grid if you can regain the ability to stand? □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely 30 □Not Applicable/Decline to Answer

  33. [41]

    How likely would you consider surgery to implant an electrode grid if you can regain the ability to walk at a constant speed? □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely □Not Applicable/Decline to Answer

  34. [42]

    How likely would you consider surgery to implant an electrode grid if you can control walking at various speeds? □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely □Not Applicable/Decline to Answer

  35. [43]

    How likely would you consider surgery to implant an electrode grid if you can make turns in addition to being able to control walking at various speeds? □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely □Not Applicable/Decline to Answer

  36. [44]

    Please indicate how important regaining sensation is to you. □Very Important □Moderately Important □Slightly Important □Not At All Important □Not Applicable/Decline to Answer 31 In this set-up, an ECoG electrode grid is implanted surgically in the brain to record electrical ac...

  37. [45]

    How likely would you consider surgery to implant an electrode grid if sensation in your legs can be restored? □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely 32 □Not Applicable/Decline to Answer

  38. [46]

    How likely would you consider surgery to implant an electrode grid if sensation in your arms can be restored? □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely □Not Applicable/Decline to Answer

  39. [47]

    How likely would you consider surgery to implant an electrode grid if sensation in your hands and fingers can be restored? □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely □Not Applicable/Decline to Answer In this set-up, an ECoG electrode grid is implanted ...

  40. [48]

    How likely would you consider surgery to implant an electrode grid if you can regain the sensation of bladder fullness? □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely □Not Applicable/Decline to Answer

  41. [49]

    How likely would you consider surgery to implant an electrode grid if you can control when you use the bathroom? □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely □Not Applicable/Decline to Answer

  42. [50]

    Is there any other bodily function you would like to restore that has not been mentioned here? □Yes □No

  43. [51]

    Text box

    Please explain what motor function(s) or sensation you would like to restore. Text box

  44. [52]

    How likely would you consider surgery to implant electrodes in the brain if the function you indicated can be restored? □Very likely □Moderately likely □Slightly likely □Not at all likely 34

  45. [53]

    Can you please explain why you would not be interested in surgery for electrode implantation in the brain if the desired function can be restored? Text box

  46. [54]

    What kind of concerns would you have regarding a surgery to implant a BCI system? Select all answers that apply. □Cost of surgery for BCI implantation □Potential risks and possible complications of surgery such as infection, scarring, excessive bleeding, blood clots, reactions...

  47. [55]

    Text box Finally, we would like to know more about you, to help compare your answers to those of other participants

    (Optional) Please indicate any other concern you have about surgery for electrode implantation or BCI technology that is not listed above. Text box Finally, we would like to know more about you, to help compare your answers to those of other participants. Again, all of this in...

  48. [56]

    What is your age? □18-24 years old □25-34 years old □35-44 years old □45-54 years old □55-64 years old □65-74 years old □75 years or older □I do not know/Decline to Answer

  49. [57]

    I am: □Male □Female □Other 35 □Decline to Answer

  50. [58]

    Please indicate the highest level of education you have completed: □Some high school or less □High School Diploma or equivalent □Some college □College graduate □Advanced Degree (Master’s, JD, MD, etc.) □I do not know/Decline to Answer

  51. [59]

    Please indicate your current occupation setting: □Laborer or helper (examples: grounds maintenance worker, construction laborer) □Operative (examples: machine operator, parking lot attendant, bus driver) □Craft worker (examples: electrician, plumber, construction worker, paint...

  52. [60]

    What is your current living situation? □I live in a skilled nursing facility with health care staff providing full-time assistance □I live in an assisted living facility with health care staff providing partial assistance □I live at home, but use supportive living services (a ...

  53. [61]

    Very Important

    What is your household’s annual income? Include earnings, Social Security, disability payments, and any other type of income. 36 □$9,999 or less □$10,000-$19,999 □$20,000-$39,999 □$40,000-$59,999 □$60,000-$99,999 □$100,000-$199,999 □$200,000 or higher □I do not know/Decline to...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.