Neural Noise

Artificial tactile and sensory feedback in BCI and neuroprosthetics

3 min read

  • BCI users can experience an artificially created sense of touch when exploring digitally represented objects.1
  • Reported percepts include the warm fur of a purring cat, the smooth rigid surface of a door key, and the cool roundness of an apple.1
  • Such artificial tactile feedback supports closed-loop sensory neuroprosthetics.1 1

Gardner updates

  • A sensory neuroprosthesis enhanced recovery from treadmill-induced stumbles in individuals with lower limb loss (Nature, Jan 2025). 2

  • Closed-loop sensory restoration for gait was demonstrated in this real-world stumble paradigm. 2

  • Fine-tuned brain-computer interfaces can restore tactile sensation of shape and movement via a bionic hand, making prosthetic limbs feel more real. 3

  • Deep learning-based fMRI classification can decode the Aristotle tactile illusion, with relevance to tactile decoding and sensory neuroprosthetics. 4

  • A new clinical trial launched to evaluate sensory prostheses for people with upper-limb loss (Case Western Reserve University). 5

  • Pitt and UPMC researchers are investigating whether restoring sensation can relieve phantom limb pain (UPMC). 6

  • A new clinical trial (Case Western Reserve University) was launched to test sensory prostheses for people with upper-limb loss. 5

  • Pitt and UPMC researchers are investigating whether restoring sensation can relieve phantom limb pain, aligning sensory neuroprosthetics with clinical translation. 6

  • An ultra-thin finger patch can recreate touch with human-level precision, relevant to sensory neuroprosthetics and human–machine interaction. 7

Weekly enrichment (2026-07-20)

  • The lead ScienceDaily story reports a University of Pittsburgh–University of Chicago study published in Nature Communications on 1 May 2025 (16(1):4017, DOI 10.1038/s41467-025-58616-6; lead author Ceci Verbaarschot, senior author Robert Gaunt).1 8
  • The study enrolled three men with tetraplegia (participants P2, P3, C1) who had lost hand sensation from spinal cord injury, using intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) of the somatosensory cortex to evoke touch.8
  • Rather than experimenters setting parameters, participants controlled their own stimulation (combinations of amplitude, frequency, biomimetic transients, and stimulation “drag”) in a blinded fashion to design object-specific tactile sensations for virtual objects.8
  • When relying on stimulation alone without visual cues, participants correctly identified one of five objects (cat, apple, key, towel, toast) 35% of the time—better than the 20% chance level but far from perfect.1
  • A linear (LDA) classifier trained on the chosen stimulation parameters predicted object identity above chance for two participants (P2: 34 ± 12%, p = 0.002; C1: 37 ± 15%, p = 0.002), while P3’s profiles (21 ± 13%) did not exceed chance (p = 0.341).8
  • Confusion errors were systematic and object-appropriate: perceptually similar objects (e.g., a soft cat versus a soft towel) were confused more often than dissimilar ones (a cat versus a rigid key), indicating the percepts carried meaningful texture information.1 8
  • Participants described vivid, subjective percepts—the warm fur of a purring cat, the smooth rigid surface of a door key, and the cool roundness of an apple—contrasting with earlier ICMS work where sensations felt like undifferentiated buzzing or tingling.1
  • The authors conclude that microstimulation of somatosensory cortex alone (independent of visual context) can evoke intuitive, object-appropriate percepts, and that this self-guided paradigm offers a way to characterize percepts for future closed-loop sensory neuroprostheses in spinal cord injury and high-level amputation.8 9

Footnotes

  1. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/05/250501122459.htm ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  2. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiX0FVX3lxTE1fRFRpUFlsYktxVWZ5YjlqVjZJaGJmZ1lOZHJXajJLSTdDaUxLWWl3Szkyb0stcWtMaVhrMnM4b1B0RV9MWmFsTENQaGM3OVVuZmV2OWZKVFVPUjNlWjMw?oc=5 ↩ ↩2

  3. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/01/250116161334.htm ↩

  4. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMilAFBVV95cUxNd1ZMNThET0c4TVJVMmJpSjhVeGZzY0FkUC11YVJnSi1JMzRHbTZySG5yTElxV3kzTzlDc0Zjcm5Eak1obnhqbEFMQ0IyR242b1dqV3VyMUlhdkdSU1NOcFlIeDVQWXdhdmd6OU00YkhyZDNrbE1xQkd2MVE2V1Y2YzVubm4wSVlyNHoyYmg5OFF5WU9o?oc=5 ↩

  5. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMikAFBVV95cUxOUXI1LXE1YWE0RXhiRTZmOTAydkVhU043bnZwNmxPb2tTOXUxSmhTUjR6NVQ5NzdOQnIzanV2WjVKd1NZWkJkNzhFajBlbG10TkVtN0ZtUEZ3b2ZVZDNGQTU4TDRrWkJmcVRIUXpsRjhWTkludVB4NGhpYkh4aU9QOXpzNnY1REJHbUtzV0N2VHU?oc=5 ↩ ↩2

  6. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMitwFBVV95cUxNWm9ucm50dHBTWDVsdkNNbXl3Wk8wLVpkRTFpQjVmN0hJZFlUVVF3dnhRd25GTUpLNjgzaHNBY3FpMDBMZXEtNWRqS2lzQldfWU9ONHpsS01xV2NmRjZvZlc4Vk9QbnUxZFlRZkN1dU1aQWlmOVNoaURBWFNJQkQ1VVVoRFU5bngzaWp5bFBHaG4wV25wUFlTdlRrOVkzTHBhYlJERFVSNnlpZ3ZmMW1weTgtdTFOUXM?oc=5 ↩ ↩2

  7. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMibEFVX3lxTE9neTQ1RHAwOVlBZjJrckU5dk9OX2ZYZGQ4N1B4TXZCbE9sTHpQX042OHVqaDVVbW1LTEZXZEVjQTAzc3FnbkJnYlc0a05Vb2w1OEhEeFhQdkVKR1BVRk5DRVp4YWpCMnR1RDhHUw?oc=5 ↩

  8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-58616-6 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  9. https://europepmc.org/article/med/40312384 ↩

Graph View