Jessica Feldman is a neuroscientist and PHD student at Brown University who is working with, among other projects, the BrainGate Group. BrainGate is a team of neurologists, neuroscientists, and other researchers all working towards a single goal: developing technologies that will restore the communication, mobility, and independence of people with neurological disease, injury, or limb loss.

The common term for this type of emerging technology is “brain-computer interfaces” (BCI), and it has the potential to change how we all interact with technology and the world around us at the most basic levels. Research into BCI began in the 1970s at UCLA under a grant from the National Science Foundation, and later DARPA. While research was initially limited to animals, the first human neuroprosthetic devices were implanted in the mid 1990s.

One of the largest barriers to effective BCI is translating neural activity into an effective machine signal, e.g., “telling” a robot arm to move in response to neural activity. Advances in methods of recording neural activity such as EEG and ECOG have improved this technology somewhat, but it’s still a very unnatural process. The goal of BrainGate and researchers like Feldman is to create natural “biomimetic” interfaces. Basically, thinking about picking up a glass of water would cause the machine to complete the complex collection of actions to pick up a glass of water.

The key to unlocking this type of interface lies with intracortical electrodes, says Feldman. These tiny wires are implanted in the brain’s cortex, and allow a single neuron’s activity to be recorded and mapped. Using a group of these wires, and taking up less than the space of a penny, allows researchers to record more complex signals.

This advance in recording neural activity opens up new avenues for helping individuals who are paralyzed or have lost a limb. Essentially, the signal of thinking about moving a lost limb can be sent to a prosthetic, causing the prosthetic limb to move. It’s an incredibly complex process, requiring specific hardware, processors, and technology. But the core necessity remains decoding the natural brain activity involved in any and every action. Says Feldman, “There’s so much basic science that goes on, even the smallest of neurophysiological questions are things that we’re looking at every day.”

However, the potential rewards are worth the effort, and “huge strides are being made,” says Feldman. The BrainGate neural device (currently in FDA human trials) has assisted individuals suffering from spinal cord injury, brainstem stroke, and ALS. At this stage, it allows individuals to control a computer cursor by thinking about the movement of their own paralyzed hand, or to use a mechanical arm to pick up and sip from a coffee cup simply by thinking about doing it. Since the technology involves physically implanting wires into the human brain, issues of safety and the longevity of the device must be thoroughly addressed. This is the BrainGate team’s next goal so that the device can move beyond the research stages.

The ultimate goal, says Feldman, “is to have a product that is an assistive medical device that can be used by any person with paralysis,” that can “restore their mobility and independence.” While the components are bulky now, as the technology continues to develop, miniaturization becomes more and more feasible. The BrainGate team currently is working on creating an autonomous system that is capable of wireless transfer. Feldman says that the aim is to create a device that can wirelessly communicate with a control unit that is small enough to be carried in a person’s pocket.

The current research and technology is focused on restoring mobility and independence to paralyzed individuals, but the potential applications are virtually unlimited. Decoding the signals of the brain and analyzing brain patterns opens up avenues for epilepsy research, artificial limbs, and understanding neurological diseases. Says Feldman, “at a basic neuroscience level, we’re learning about brain circuitry, neural circuitry, how things work. We’re able to study how the brain works for the first time at the micro level.” The real discovery in BrainGate’s research is how cognition becomes behavior.

In the end, the question isn’t what the implications of this research could be, but is there any area of human life that this technology would not effect?

Camilleri and his team have been studying brain responses for ten years. Now they have found one that is optimal for controlling a music player using eye movements. The system was originally developed to improve the quality of life of individuals with severely impaired motor abilities such as those with motor neuron disease or cerebral palsy.

The technology works by reading two key features of the user’s nervous system: the nerves that trigger muscular movement in the eyes and the way that the brain processes vision. The user can control the music player simply by looking at a series of flickering boxes on a computer screen. Each of the lights flicker at a certain frequency and as the user looks at them their brain synchronizes at the same rate. This brain pattern reading system, developed by Rosanne Zerafa relies on a system involving Steady State Visually Evoked potentials (SSVEPs).

Electrical signals sent by the brain are then picked up by a series of electrodes placed at specific locations on the user’s scalp. This process, known as electroencephalography (EEG), records the brain responses and converts the brain activity into a series of computer commands.

As the user looks at the boxes on the screen, the computer program is able to figure out the commands, allowing the music player to be controlled without the need of any physical movement. In order to adjust the volume, or change the song, the user just has to look at the corresponding box. The command takes effect in just seconds.

For people who have become paralyzed due to a spinal injury, the normal flow of brain signals through the spine and to muscles is disrupted. However, the cranial nerves are separate and link directly from the brain to certain areas of the body, bypassing the spine altogether. This particular brain-computer interface exploits one of these; the occulomotor nerve, which is responsible for the eye’s movements. This means that even an individual with complete body paralysis can still move their eyes over images on a screen.

This cutting age brain-computer interface system could lead the way for the development of similar user interfaces for tablets and smart phones. The concept could also be designed to aid with assisted living applications, for example.

The BCI system was presented at the 6th International IEEE/EMBS Neural Engineering Conference in San Diego, California by team member Dr. Owen Falzon.

When we imagine the future of warfare, we often envision a battlefield where humanoid robots and other machines fight alongside or in the place of human soldiers. From the droids of Star Wars to The Terminator’s cyborg soldiers, robots play a prominent role in our collective vision of future combat.

While science fiction is populated with anthropomorphic and sometimes malevolent robots that can seem remarkably human, in the real world, robots are simply programmable machines that can sense and interact with their environment. From this point of view, most advanced weapons systems are robotic, including cruise missiles, drones, and air and missile defense systems.

Are we at the beginning of an inevitable process leading to the rise of “killer robots” predicted by science fiction, or can robots actually make war less destructive?¹ What comes next in the advancement of military robots?

Developing Robotic Weapons

So far, autonomous robots have played a marginal role in warfare. Recently, however, the use of drones to counter the improvised explosive device (IED) threat in Iraq and carry out aerial bombing campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia has elevated military robots to a more prominent role in U.S. military operations.^(a)

As the U.S. winds down its counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the most important robotic systems used in these conflicts will be far less in demand. These include IED hunters and unmanned aerial vehicles such as Northrop Grumman’s Global Hawk surveillance drones and General Atomics’ armed Predator and Reaper drones. In fact, the Department of Defense plans to slash these drones’ numbers due to both their inability to survive in contested airspaces and general budgetary pressures.

Instead, there will be a greater focus on developing robotic systems for shorter but more massive air campaigns against more sophisticated adversaries with modern air defense systems, like Libya, Syria, China, or Russia. The Pentagon will likely continue its efforts to build global precision strike capability, allowing rapid deployment of unmanned weapons that can attack anywhere in the world within an hour.^(b) In addition, there will be a continuing focus on technologies and capabilities relevant for low-intensity conflicts like the ongoing War on Terror.

As for the development of robot soldiers, despite decades of intensive research and continuous breakthroughs in robotics, the progress in creating autonomous military robots has been surprisingly slow. Several projects funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have resulted in humanoid robot prototypes, but they lack the portable power source and intelligence that would allow them to act beyond very limited non-combat roles.

The most promising advancements have been the Navy’s X-47 drone, which recently mastered the art of landing on aircraft carriers, and humanoid robot prototypes such as DARPA’s rescue robot Atlas.^(c)

The Cyborgization of Human Soldiers

Another approach to implementing robotic weapons systems is to combine them with humans, whose bodies could be augmented with robotic technology. This concept offers the best of both worlds: the quick reaction times, precision, and strength of robotic systems and the control and superior cognitive abilities of humans.

DARPA’s Land Warrior and its successor projects (Objective Force Warrior, Future Force Warrior, and now Warrior Web) aim to equip soldiers with wearable computers, advanced communications gear, helmet visors with night vision and head-up-display, and robotic exoskeletons for improved mobility. While the potential may be vast, such human enhancement has suffered the same setbacks and slow progress as the development of other robotic systems. The gear is still too heavy, and the exoskeletons that could enable soldiers to carry more and move faster lack a sufficient power source.

At the same time, there has been remarkable progress in neuroscience with respect to mapping and manipulating the human brain.² Though not currently employed, a number of technologies have potential military applications. A technique called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to enhance the concentration and alertness of human test subjects.³ EEGs embedded in helmets might one day enable soldiers to control weapons through the power of thought. A research project at Duke University showed that a monkey with an implanted brain chip could control a robotic arm, and researchers at Brown University created the first wireless brain-computer interface in March.^(d)

The ultimate goal of some in the Pentagon is to develop “super soldiers” who could be deployed anywhere in the world within hours and remain in the field for extended periods of time. Their bodies and performance could potentially be enhanced through nanosensors that constantly monitor their medical status, embedded nanoneedles that release drugs when needed, and possibly even nanorobots that can quickly heal wounds in the field.^(e)

These “super soldiers” might be supported by a range of robotic devices and weapons systems, including robotic dogs to carry their gear, drones to resupply them, and robotic platforms from which to call in long-range precision strikes. The soldiers could one day assign robot helpers specific missions that they could then carry out with little human supervision.^(f)

Ethical Concerns And Scientific Unknowns

The use of military robots raises both ethical and tactical concerns. Will they be able to distinguish targets and use force proportionately? Will soldiers be willing to fight alongside completely autonomous robots? Could robots one day entirely replace humans and human-operated systems on the battlefield? What role might robots play in non-traditional wars such as the war on terror or the fight against transnational organized crime? These questions, along with other unknowns, have led United Nations Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns, Human Rights Watch, and other critics to call for a ban on autonomous military robots.⁴

Critics are also concerned that advanced artificial intelligence (AI) could develop in directions not anticipated by scientists. Because of this unpredictability, the US military has indicated that it will never remove humans from the decision loop completely. While unmanned weapons systems will become gradually more autonomous so that they can carry out very specific missions with less human direction, they may never entirely replace human soldiers on the battlefield.

The technological augmentation and modification of human soldiers raises even more troubling ethical issues than the development of autonomous robots.⁵ Since millions of dollars could go into technologically upgrading the body and mind of a single soldier, would the soldier be allowed to quit military service? What does it mean for an egalitarian and democratic society to provide certain individuals with superhuman abilities? While enhancing human soldiers may have its benefits, it opens up a web of ethical, political, and legal dilemmas.

What’s Next

Although truly autonomous military robots with strong artificial intelligence could potentially be built and deployed within the next twenty years, there are great doubts about their military usefulness and legality. Fully autonomous robots could easily turn out to be uncontrollable weapons. Furthermore, the difficult budgetary climate will not change in the foreseeable future, which means that the U.S. military has to focus its research and acquisition on the projects relevant to the most likely military needs. Instead of designing robots for war, the Pentagon may aim to enhance and even cyborgize soldiers while further developing human-operated robotic systems. Under the most likely scenarios, it may not be the Pentagon’s robots we should be worried about, but rather the changes in humans that military technology will inaugurate.