Talk:BrainGate

Creation of new page dealing with BCI technology
As BrainGate is a product, I'd suggest this page be merged with Neurochip or renamed Brain-computer interfacing technology and broadened to include dother aspects of brain computer interface technology. --Saganaki- 01:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. Brain computer interface already exists and is quite long (if nebulous), whereas this article is quite specific. In the section on invasive BCI's the BrainGate is mentioned but not in much detail and without any links for further info. It's not so much a product at this stage as an experimental prototype. --PaulWicks 08:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul. Not actually suggesting we merge BrainGate into BCI, but that rather we start a new page where BCI interfaces can be discussed. We'd retain the BrainGate content, but discuss it in detail alongside the Miguelis interface etc.Saganaki- 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought the two were related? --PaulWicks 09:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, there are three or four main interfaces. BrainGate is based on the Utah Array developed by Richard Normann and is now owned by John Donoghue's Cyberkinetics company. Philip Kennedy Neural Signals has a different interface using glass cones and Miguel Nicolelis' group has their own interface. Although William Dobelle is dead his interface is also still being developed. --Saganaki- 08:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Broken Link
The first external link is broken: http://www.cyberkineticsinc.com/content/medicalproducts/braingate.jsp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.195.201 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

introducing myself and disclosing potential conflict of interest
Hello Wikipedia community,

I would like to introduce myself and disclose potential conflicts of interest with regards to my edits to this page. I am a member of the BrainGate2 team (the original BrainGate clinical trial by CyberKinetics Inc. has ended and has been replaced by a purely academic/government, non-commercial team). As you may see, this entry on the BrainGate project is short and extremely out of date. I would like to add more and more timely factual information about the BrainGate2 Neural Interface System device and research project. Given that we are a high-profile research team running a clinical trial of this investigatory neuroprosthetic system, I feel that a better Wikipedia entry will be of worth to persons interested in learning more about the project, the underlying science, or the potential medical applications of this device.

I have read the Wikipedia policy on conflicts of interest, and so I will attempt to solicit community input regarding changes, and to be very frank about my affiliations. If someone else wishes to update this article, that'd be great, but since it's gone largely unchanged for years I've taken it upon myself to do so until such a person comes along.

My affiliation with the subject of this entry is as follows: I am an employee of Massachusetts General Hospital (which is responsible for the current clinical trial), Brown University (which is where most of the science and device development is done), and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Research Service, which is one of the primary sponsors of this joint academic/government/clinical project. I am a junior scientific member of the team.

I am also a first-time Wikipedia editor (but a long-time visitor) so I apologize in advance for mistakes I may make, and would be very appreciative of advice and aid.

It will take a while before you start to see substantial edits to this page, but some immediate changes that I will make will be to eliminate the broken link to the website of Cyberkinetics (which has wound down its operations and is no longer involved in the project). Additionally, and here I am prepared for some controversy, I am eliminating the link to www.braingate.com, which is a misleading website owned by a private individual unaffiliated with the original BrainGate research nor the current BrainGate2 phase of the research. I will instead link to www.braingate2.org, which is our current temporary website.

Yes, braingate2.org looks like it came from 1996; I assure you that this is a placeholder website and that a much more informative and professionally done website is coming.

I welcome any comments by anyone who is interested in the BrainGate project or this Wikipedia article. Please be patient with me to add more content to the article and/or our website. Cutting-edge brain-machine interface development is rather time-consuming and leaves less time for educating the world about what we do than I would like.

Aneuroscientist (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. As long as the information you add is verifiable and doesn't look like advertising, I don't foresee any major problems.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on your comments, I would strongly recommend that you add a page on Wikipedia for BrainGate2. What you are doing is essentially vandalism as we should work to preserve the history here.  I will add a new page for you to present new information on the new project (BrainGate2) which will allow information on the original Braingate to stand intact.  I suspect that the alternative will cause confusion and problems. Cheers, --Fitibones (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

added page Braingate2. I used content from your website (since you disclosed your conflict of interest). Feel free to edit as you see appropriate.--Fitibones (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about the topic to judge these edits, but you should avoid words like "vandalism" and "link spam". I'm neutral here but I tend to automatically oppose people who use insulting language without strong justification. Looie496 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Looie, we should all assume good faith, especially with self-confessed newbies! --PaulWicks (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I agree as well--good point. I saw that links were removed and added on another page as well and overreacted.  Based on the above, I suspect this was all in good faith.  --Fitibones (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Update on project status
Given the discussion above, would it be useful to have a new section on the current status of the project? The article reads as if the project is ongoing. --PaulWicks (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe not a new section, but a link to the BrainGate2 page. Best I can tell, there are a number of groups doing things.  It looks like cyberkinetics is now owned or operated by Braingate and as far as I can tell it is still active, or at least the websites [www.braingate.com] and [www.cyberkinetics.com] are live and claims to be operating.  On the SEC reports for cyberkinetics, it looks like the engineering was sold to a company called i2s.  And Brown is working on clinical trials they call BrainGate2.  I would suggest leaving Braingate for Braingate; Braingate2 for braingate2; and i2s to their page if warranted.  There is also substantial work being done at Duke which seems to be similar to BrainGate2--this information is found in a general academic page.  So Braingate2 may just belong on a section in that same page: the [brain-computer interfaces] page.  Links between all of them might make sense as well.--Fitibones (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro too long, contents too short?
Anyone ese feel the introduction is too long before the table of contents, and then everything below that is too short? Would it not be better to move some of the details from the introduction into the main body of the article? Seems pointless having the table of contents more than 2/3rds in to the content of the page. Not suggesting actually deleting any of the information, but couldn't most of it be moved into a sub section of the main body rather than in the prelude section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.109.8 (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest note: Amire80
Hi,

I plan to make a few small edits to this article. I have a family member who works on this technology. I receive no compensation for this, and I make changes that should be quite simple, referenced, and non-controversial. If anyone has any doubts, feel free to revert. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)