New Taxonomy for BCIs

This piece, by Onno Berkan, was published on 01/21/25. The original text, by Robinson et al., was published by Nature Biomedical Engineering on 12/23/24.

This Rice University study addresses the need to clarify and standardize how we talk about Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) technology. Current BCI terminology is complex and confusing, leading this study to aim at creating a clear system for classifying different types of BCIs.

The main problems with current terminology include:

• Inconsistent use of terms like "BCI" and "brain-machine interface (BMI)"

• Confusion between what's considered "invasive" versus "non-invasive"

• Lack of clear distinctions between different types of brain interfaces

The researchers propose a new, simpler way to categorize BCIs based on their main purpose, dividing them into two main categories:

Communication and Movement BCIs

These are devices designed to help people communicate or control things with their brain signals. This category includes technologies that help with:

• Speech

• Vision

• Movement control

• Cursor control

Therapeutic BCIs

These are devices meant to treat medical conditions or improve brain function, including:

• Epilepsy treatment

• Psychiatric treatment

• Rehabilitation

• Tremor control

An important distinction in the classification system is whether a BCI is implanted or not. Implanted BCIs are defined as devices that are placed under the skin and require surgery to access brain signals. These are often referred to as ‘invasive’ BCIs.

The authors cite the benefits of this new classification system as:

• Better alignment with how the public understands BCI technology

• Easier creation of regulatory guidelines

• Clearer healthcare coverage policies

• Better patient understanding of clinical trials

Ultimately, as the issue is between two conventions that address the same overall products, the improvement is mostly aesthetic. The researchers don’t define or specify pre-existing terminology, just suggest a different grouping. Convention often comes about through practice, rather than theory, where the most salient and significant features are used for categorization.

The researchers acknowledge that this basic framework cannot cover every specific case, and they expect professional organizations to further develop it based on their specific needs. However, they believe this approach will be helpful for all and can easily accommodate new technologies as they emerge.

A clear and efficient taxonomy is particularly important because BCIs are becoming more common in medical and consumer applications. Having a consistent way to describe and categorize these technologies will help:

• Regulators create better guidelines

• Healthcare providers make informed decisions

• Patients better understand their treatment options

• Investors make more informed decisions

The researchers state their goal as being not to provide final, rigid definitions but rather to start a conversation that will lead to more precise technical definitions.

Want to submit a piece? Or trying to write a piece and struggling? Check out the guides here!

Thank you for reading. Reminder: Byte Sized is open to everyone! Feel free to submit your piece. Please read the guides first though.

All submissions to berkan@usc.edu with the header “Byte Sized Submission” in Word Doc format please. Thank you!