Perceptions of ECoG implantation for BCI after stroke and spinal cord injury (Frontiers, 2026)

• A Frontiers in Neuroscience survey addresses stroke and spinal cord injury populations with persistent motor/sensory deficits and frames invasive BCIs—especially ECoG—as a potential route to bypass injury and restore function.¹
• Researchers surveyed receptiveness to surgical implantation of ECoG grids specifically for BCI use, including rehabilitative goals and priority ranking across motor and sensory domains.¹
• Analyses relate willingness to be implanted to hypothetical functional recovery offered by the device/procedure and to stated rehabilitative priorities (additional self-reported measures referenced but truncated in the excerpt).¹
• The study is positioned to inform development, trial design, and deployment aligned with user expectations.¹
• Authors Derrick Lin, Zoran Nenadic, An H. Do and colleagues (University of California, Irvine / UCLA) surveyed 71 participants: 33 stroke, 37 SCI, and 1 with both conditions, all at least 6 months post-injury.¹
• Key finding: respondents reported high willingness to undergo ECoG implantation even for basic function restoration (upper-extremity control, gait, bowel/bladder, sensation); crucially, willingness showed no correlation with the degree of functional recovery promised by the hypothetical BCI, nor with stated rehabilitative priorities or disability severity.¹
• Higher household income was significantly associated with greater willingness to undergo surgery for sensory restoration: leg sensation RR 1.46 (95% CI [1.08, 1.98]); arm sensation RR 1.42 (95% CI [1.04, 1.93]); hand/finger sensation RR 1.36 (95% CI [1.04, 1.78]).¹
• Most commonly cited concern: potential surgical risks and complications (infection, scarring, bleeding, clots, anesthesia reactions) — cited by 77% of respondents; long-term device durability was second at 62%.¹
• The most frequently endorsed additional function for restoration was sexual function (6 participants “very likely” to undergo surgery for it on average), reflecting unmet autonomic restoration needs beyond motor/sensory domains.¹
• The authors warn that stated interest may not translate to informed surgical consent in real-world contexts, highlighting the risk of overly optimistic expectations, and emphasize the need for robust, transparent consent frameworks and balanced communication as invasive BCIs approach clinical deployment.¹

Footnotes

1. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2026.1678175 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰