Human Brain/Cloud Interface

In the paper

“The application of nanorobots to the human brain is denoted here as “neuralnanorobotics.” This technology may allow for the monitoring, recording, and even manipulation of many types of brain-related information at cellular and organellar levels”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Martins et al., 2012 source
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Martins et al., 2015
• Partly supported

  The Abstract defines neuronanorobotics as applying medical nanorobots to the human brain and describes mapping, monitoring, and recording brain information. Section 1 extends the proposed monitoring to cellular and subcellular information, and Section 2 mentions monitoring neuronal organelles. Our copy does not say these nanorobots can manipulate brain-related information. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  cites Martins et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“The pursuit of ever smaller tools to treat patients is approaching a pivotal juncture in medical history as advanced nanomedicine — specifically, medical nanorobotics — is expected to serve as a dynamic tool toward addressing most human brain disorders.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The FREITAS section says medical nanorobots have been proposed to repair brain damage, supporting a possible role in a brain-related condition. It does not say they are expected to address most human brain disorders; the paper instead develops a preliminary design for an artificial red blood cell. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  cites Freitas, 1998 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Freitas, 1999b
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Freitas, 2003 source

In the paper

“The most promising long-term future technology for non-destructive, real-time human–brain–computer interfaces and brain-to-brain communications may be neuralnanorobotics”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Introduction proposes neuronanorobots for in-vivo, real-time whole-brain monitoring, and Section 4 says the approach appears uniquely able to provide non-destructive whole-brain scanning at nanometric resolution. The paper does not establish the further claim that neuronanorobotics is the most promising long-term technology for brain–computer interfaces or brain-to-brain communication. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites Martins et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“However, fluorescing carbon nanodots might be problematic, since crossing the BBB is a challenging process for ∼98% of all small molecules”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Introduction states that transport of small molecules across the BBB is the exception and that 98% of all small molecules do not cross it. This supports the cited claim; the concern about carbon nanodots is the citing authors’ own framing. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites Pardridge, 2005 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Grabrucker et al., 2016 source

In the paper

“One promising near-term technology that may enable an interface with brain-based neural networks is magnetoelectric nanoparticles, which may be employed to enhance coupling between external magnetic fields and localized electric fields that emanate from neural networks”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Introduction (page not provided) describes ME nanoparticles as enabling coupling between externally controlled magnetic fields and local electric activity that interacts with neural networks. The Simulation section (page not provided) likewise describes the particles as local sources of electric fields controlled by external magnetic fields. The claim is a fair paraphrase of the proposed mechanism, not a claim of demonstrated clinical use. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  cites Yue et al., 2012 source
• Supported

  The Discussion says that introducing magnetoelectric nanoparticles into the brain robustly couples intrinsic CNS electric signals to an external magnetic field at the subneuronal level. The Conclusion likewise says the nanoparticles can directly couple neural electric-field-driven processes with external magnetic fields. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Guduru et al., 2015 source

In the paper

“Magnetoelectric nanoparticles might also induce nanoparticles to traverse the blood–brain barrier (BBB) by applying a direct-current magnetic field gradient to the cranial vault.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Introduction (page not specified) proposes that magnetoelectric nanoparticles smaller than approximately 20 nm can penetrate the blood–brain barrier. It does not say that a direct-current magnetic field gradient applied to the cranial vault drives that crossing; the magnetic fields discussed are used to control nanoparticles or stimulate brain activity. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites Yue et al., 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• Supported

  The Abstract says intravenously administered magnetoelectric nanoparticles were forced across the blood–brain barrier using a d.c. field gradient. The Methods describe placing a permanent magnet over the top of the mouse’s head, and the Discussion likewise attributes the crossing to a magnetic-field gradient. (LLM, conf=0.93)

  cites Guduru et al., 2015 source

In the paper

“This technology currently employs thousands of independent free-floating 10–100 μm scale sensor nodes referred to as “neural dust.””

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The System Concept (p. 1) describes neural dust as thousands of independent, free-floating 10–100 μm sensor nodes. But it says the authors “propose” this system; it does not establish that the technology currently employs those nodes. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites Seo et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Hence, each individual neuron within the human brain is at most 2–3 neurons away from a microcapillary (Pardridge, 2011).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Introduction’s “Anatomical considerations” section states that the inter-capillary distance in the human brain is about 40 μm, enough space for two neurons, and concludes that every neuron is perfused by a blood vessel. This supports the citing sentence’s approximate 2–3-neuron proximity claim. No page number is provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites Pardridge, 2011 source

In the paper

“For example, one recent study has found that quantum dots can function as voltage-sensitive probes for real-time visualization of cellular membrane potential in neurons (Nag et al., 2017).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Conclusions report that the quantum dot–peptide–fullerene probe imaged membrane-potential changes in primary cortical neurons. The Results and Discussion also describe time-resolved optical responses to electrical stimulation in mouse cortex, supporting its use for real-time visualization. (LLM, conf=0.93)

  cites Nag et al., 2017 source

In the paper

“In another example of interspecies BTBI, a human brain guided the movements of a Madagascar hissing cockroach along an S-shape track, controlling the cockroach antennae via electrical stimulation (Li and Zhang, 2016).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Materials and Methods identify the insect as a Madagascar hissing cockroach and describe electrodes inserted into its antennae to deliver stimulation. The Abstract reports that human-brain commands navigated the cockroach along an S-shape track, with a success rate of about 20%. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Li and Zhang, 2016 source

In the paper

“Early “neural dust” proposals for providing BCI access to specific human–brain regions (e.g., neocortex) had several inherent limitations (Seo et al., 2013).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The paper proposes neural dust for clinically relevant brain–machine interfaces and discusses placing nodes in the cortex (p. 1; Discussion and Conclusions, p. 10). Its Discussion and Conclusions (p. 10) identifies several challenges, including power and signal-to-noise constraints, device integration, and transceiver design. This supports the citing sentence’s broad description of limitations in the early proposal. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites Seo et al., 2013 source

In the paper

“Neuralnanorobotics is expected to provide a non-destructive, real-time, secure, long-term, and virtually autonomous in vivo system that can realize the first functional human B/CI (Martins et al., 2012, 2015, 2016).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Martins et al., 2012 source
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Martins et al., 2015
• Partly supported

  The Introduction and Conclusions propose non-destructive, real-time, in vivo monitoring of the human brain using neuronanorobots. The paper does not establish that the proposed system would be secure, long-term, virtually autonomous, or capable of realizing the first functional human brain–computer interface. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites Martins et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“An array of nanowire transistors can detect, stimulate, or inhibit nerve impulses and their propagation along individual neurites (Freitas, 1999b; Zeck and Fromherz, 2001; Patolsky et al., 2006).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Freitas, 1999b
• Partly supported

  The Abstract and Results and Discussion describe capacitive stimulation of snail neurons and transistor recording of their action potentials. But the Abstract says the study does not pursue array recording; its contacts are beneath neuron cell bodies, not individual neurites. The cited passages do not establish nanowire transistors or inhibition of nerve impulses. (LLM, conf=0.89)

  cites Zeck and Fromherz, 2001 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Patolsky et al., 2006 source

In the paper

“Intercapillary distances in the brain are typically ∼40 μm.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Introduction’s “Anatomical considerations” section states that the inter-capillary distance in brain is about 40 μm, matching the claim. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites Pardridge, 2011 source

In the paper

“This group also showed that the activities of individual neurons and localized neural circuits could be monitored and stimulated over timelines of eight months or more, for applications such as recording of alterations in the activities of specific neurons as the brain ages (Dai et al., 2018).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  In “Mesh Nanoelectronics in Live Animals” (page unavailable), the paper reports tracking the same neurons and local circuits for eight months. Although it broadly describes recording and stimulation on a year time scale, its specific evidence for stable responses to chronic stimulation spans nearly three months, not eight or more. The Conclusions and Outlook identifies studying changes during brain aging as an application. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites Dai et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Monitoring the intracellular structural and functional connectome may be enabled by three classes of neuralnanorobots, introduced here as endoneurobots, synaptobots, and gliabots (Martins et al., 2016).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  Section 5 states that the proposed mission design uses three types of neuronanorobots for intracellular structural and functional connectome monitoring, and names them endoneurobots, gliabots, and synaptobots. The paper presents this as a proposed capability, consistent with the claim’s “may be enabled” wording. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Martins et al., 2016 source

In the paper

“Dai et al. (2018) also demonstrated “stable integration of mesh nanoelectronics within brain tissue on at least 1 year scales without evidence of chronic immune response or the glial scarring characteristic of conventional implants.””

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Abstract states that time-dependent histology showed stable integration in rodent brain tissue for at least one year without evidence of chronic immune response or glial scarring. The “Mesh Nanoelectronics in Live Animals” section reports that immune-response markers returned to background levels by 4–6 weeks and remained there at the probe interface for at least one year, in contrast to conventional probes. Page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites Dai et al., 2018 source

In the paper

“While not yet particularly sophisticated, recently demonstrated Brainet systems have already provided several interesting insights, including verification of potential direct communications between the brains of two rats located on different continents, after the rats had been permanently implanted with microelectrodes in the sensorimotor cortex (Pais-Vieira et al., 2013).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  cites Pais-Vieira et al., 2013 source

In the paper

“High-density arrays of nanowire FETs enabled mapping signals at the subcellular level – a functionality that is not possible with conventional microfabricated devices (Timko et al., 2010).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Abstract states that high-density NWFET arrays enabled subcellular signal mapping, a functionality not enabled by conventional microfabricated devices. Section VI (Conclusion and Prospects) also describes subcellular recordings and multiplexed signal mapping. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites Timko et al., 2010 source

In the paper

“Experiments have tested three different control systems using 2–3 implanted monkeys that shared BMI-mediated control of a virtual arm (Ramakrishnan et al., 2015).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results describe three experiments: shared control, partitioned control, and triad control of a virtual avatar arm. The Results and Discussion state that implanted monkeys worked in pairs or triplets, using recorded brain activity to control the arm jointly. (LLM, conf=0.93)

  cites Ramakrishnan et al., 2015 source

In the paper

“BTBI systems were initially implemented in humans (Figure 2) using non-invasive recordings and brain stimulation.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Abstract describes this as the first human brain-to-brain interface and says it combined EEG-based recording with TMS-based stimulation. The Figure 2 description in Materials and Methods identifies both devices as non-invasive. (LLM, conf=0.93)

  cites Grau et al., 2014 source
• Supported

  The Introduction describes this as the first non-invasive brain-to-brain interface safely applied to humans, using EEG to record the sender’s brain activity and TMS to stimulate the receiver’s brain. The Discussion and Conclusion calls it the first working BBI in humans. Page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Rao et al., 2014 source

In the paper

“Information was transferred from the sensorimotor cortex of one participant (recorded via EEG) to the visual (Grau et al., 2014) or motor (Rao et al., 2014) cortex of the second participant (delivered via transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Methods Summary describes an emitter whose motor-imagery states were recorded through EEG activity in the motor cortex, with information sent to receivers stimulated by TMS at an occipital site. The Computer-Brain Interface section identifies that site as the visual occipital cortex. The citing sentence attributes the visual-cortex route to Grau et al.; its motor-cortex receiver route is attributed to Rao et al., not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.92)

  cites Grau et al., 2014 source
• Supported

  The Abstract (page not available) says the interface detected motor imagery in the sender’s EEG and transmitted that information to the receiver’s motor cortex, where TMS elicited a motor response. In the citing sentence, Rao et al. is attached specifically to the receiver’s motor cortex, not the alternative visual-cortex pathway. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites Rao et al., 2014 source

In the paper

“The BBB may also be opened using intravenous mannitol (an old method) and ultrasound, externally delivered (Samiotaki et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Introduction says focused ultrasound can open the BBB, and Methods §2.2 describes transcranial ultrasound in rhesus macaques. The intravenously administered agent in that procedure was microbubbles, not mannitol; our copy does not support the mannitol part of the citing sentence. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites Samiotaki et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wang et al., 2017 source

In the paper

“Human brains have also been connected to cell cultures, experimentally demonstrating that brain activity can control gene expression, using an EEG-based BMI to trigger optogenetic stimulation of designer cells, thereby mediating their genetic expression (Folcher et al., 2014).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results section, “Mind-controlled transgene expression in mammalian cells” (page not provided), reports that human subjects used an EEG-based interface to control NIR illumination and transgene expression in cultured designer cells. This matches the claimed experimental connection between brain activity and gene expression. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Folcher et al., 2014 source

In the paper

“For example, certain axonal and dendritic domains are less than 0.50 μm in diameter (Shepherd and Harris, 1998), and myelinated axons at three different sites of the corpus callosum in the human brain are estimated to have axon diameters of ≥0.50 μm, in 70–90% of cases (range 0.16–3.73 μm, mean 0.73 ± 0.55 μm) (Liewald et al., 2014).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Axonal shafts section and Table 3 report shaft diameters averaging 0.17 μm, with a range of 0.11–0.30 μm, supporting the axonal part of the claim. The paper compares these narrow shafts to dendritic spine necks but does not give a dendritic diameter measurement below 0.50 μm. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  cites Shepherd and Harris, 1998 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“For example, certain axonal and dendritic domains are less than 0.50 μm in diameter (Shepherd and Harris, 1998), and myelinated axons at three different sites of the corpus callosum in the human brain are estimated to have axon diameters of ≥0.50 μm, in 70–90% of cases (range 0.16–3.73 μm, mean 0.73 ± 0.55 μm) (Liewald et al., 2014).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Discussion (page unavailable) confirms that the authors sampled three corpus-callosum locations in two human brains, but the Results give a diameter range of 0.17–5.13 μm and averages of 0.64–0.74 μm for those samples. Table 1 (page unavailable) assigns 0.73 ± 0.55 μm and a 3.73 μm maximum to the left superior longitudinal fascicle of brain 1, not the corpus callosum. The passages found do not substantiate the claimed 70–90% at or above 0.50 μm. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites Liewald et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“The experiment was repeated with five groups with an average accuracy of 0.813.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Jiang et al., 2018

In the paper

“Brain–machine interface technology is currently being pursued via invasive neural interfaces composed of neural microchip sensor arrays that contain a plurality of electrodes that can detect multicellular signals. These are available for several brain areas (e.g., visual cortex, motor cortex neuroprosthetics, hippocampus, and others) (Berger et al., 2005; BrainGate, 2009).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berger et al., 2005 source
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites BrainGate, 2009

In the paper

“The loss of synapses, as occurs in Alzheimer’s patients, is intimately related to cognitive decline (Dekosky and Scheff, 1990; Terry et al., 1991; Scheff and Price, 2006).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dekosky and Scheff, 1990 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Terry et al., 1991 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Scheff and Price, 2006 source

In the paper

“Plug-and-play input/output neural interfacing has also been achieved using platinum electrodes and silicon nanowire field-effect transistors, which exhibited a low interface contact resistance of ∼3 Ω (Schuhmann et al., 2017).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schuhmann et al., 2017 source

In the paper

“Neural electrodes can be implanted without producing any detectable damage beyond the initial trauma and brief phagocytosis, which are typically limited to the edges of the electrode insertion pathway (Babb and Kupfer, 1984) (Freitas, 2003).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Babb and Kupfer, 1984 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Freitas, 2003 source

In the paper

“A three-human BTBI system, called “BrainNet,” has been recently developed, which allowed three human subjects to collaboratively solve a task using non-invasive, direct brain-to-brain communication (Jiang et al., 2018).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Jiang et al., 2018

In the paper

“Currently, nanoelectronics devices utilizing carbon nanotubes and silicon nanowires can detect and identify neuronal biomolecular chemical secretions and their bioelectrical activities (Veliev, 2016).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Veliev, 2016

In the paper

“Furthermore, autonomous nanomedical devices are expected to be biocompatible, primarily due to their structural materials, which would enable extended residency within the human body”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Freitas, 1999a
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Freitas, 2002
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Freitas, 2003 source

In the paper

“Medical neuralnanorobots might also be fabricated in sufficient therapeutic quantities to treat individual patients, using diamondoid materials, as these materials may provide the greatest strength, resilience, and reliability in vivo”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Freitas, 2010 source

In the paper

“Non-destructive neuralnanorobotically mediated whole-brain monitoring coupled with single-cell repair capabilities (Freitas, 2007) is anticipated to provide a powerful medical capability to effectively treat most, or all of the ∼400 known brain disorders, including, most notably: Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s (Freitas, 2016), addiction, dementia, epilepsy, and spinal cord disorders (NINDS, 2017).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Freitas, 2007
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Freitas, 2016
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites NINDS, 2017

In the paper

“Experimental results have been reported using the injection and unfolding of sub-micrometer-thick, centimeter-scale macroporous mesh nanoelectronics through needles with diameters as small as 100 μm, which were injected into cavities with a >90% device yield”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Liu et al., 2015 source

In the paper

“The delivery of nanoparticles into the human brain will indeed pose a formidable challenge.”

In the paper

“Fluorescing carbon nanodots (synthesized using D-glucose and L-aspartic acid) with uniform diameters of 2.28 ± 0.42 nm have been employed to target and image C6 glioma cells in mouse brains.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zheng et al., 2015 source

In the paper

“This challenge includes, in particular, the bottleneck of the bandwidth required to transmit data worldwide.”

In the paper

“This would introduce minimally invasive three-dimensional mesh nanoelectronics, via syringe-injection, into living brain tissue to allow for continuous monitoring and stimulation of individual neurons and neuronal networks.”

In the paper

“This finding may challenge the long-held belief that spikes in the soma (body of the neuron) are the primary means through which perception, learning, and memory formation occur.”

In the paper

“Due to the immense volume of data involved, data transfer to and from living human brains and the cloud may likely require the use of supercomputers with artificial intelligence algorithms.”

In the paper

“This suggests that emulation of biological synapses is a prerequisite for the development of brain-like computational systems”

In the paper

“Excellent biocompatibility, tunable full-color emission, and the capacity to freely penetrate the BBB might make fluorescing carbon nanodots viable candidates as tagging agents to facilitate the implementation of nanomedical B/CI technologies”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zheng et al., 2015 source

In the paper

“Estimates for whole-brain electrical data processing rates range from 1.48 × 1011 bits/sec. to a high of 3.2 × 1029 bits/sec”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Sandberg and Bostrom, 2008
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Martins et al., 2012 source

In the paper

“However, once brain data is interfaced with supercomputers in near real-time, the connection to supercomputers in the cloud will be the ultimate bottleneck between the cloud and the human brain”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Knapp, 2013

In the paper

“Steering nanoparticles to selected brain regions may also be achieved using external magnetic fields”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Li et al., 2018

In the paper

“Several centralized and distributed supercomputers have processing speeds that are significantly higher than this estimate”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Martins et al., 2012 source

In the paper

“As dendrites are ∼100 times larger by volume than neuronal bodies, the immense number of firing dendritic spikes would suggest that the brain may indeed possess significantly higher computational power than earlier estimated.”

In the paper

“One estimate of maximum computational speed required to handle the electrical data in the human brain is 5.52 × 1016 bits/sec”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Martins et al., 2012 source

In the paper

“All three types of neuralnanorobots (endoneurobots, gliabots, and synaptobots) would monitor action potential-based electrical information using the same types of FET-based nanosensors embedded in their surfaces (Martins et al., 2015).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Martins et al., 2015

In the paper

“For the purposes of a B/CI, interfacing with neuronal and synaptically processed action-potential-based electrical brain activity alone (without monitoring chemically based information) may be sufficient to facilitate robust human B/CI systems.”

In the paper

“Two synaptobots placed at these sites would ensure proper waveform detection of all action potentials.”

In the paper

“To achieve a safe, reliable, high-performance B/CI system, a critical mission requirement is the initial establishment of intimate and stable connections to monitor the electrical firing patterns and waveforms of the ∼86 × 109 neurons and the ∼2 × 1014 synapses of the human brain at a suitable repetition rate (400–800 Hz is the reported average maximum range) (Wilson, 1999; Contreras, 2004).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wilson, 1999 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Contreras, 2004 source

In the paper

“For their part, gliabots would utilize the same probing strategy.”

In the paper

“However, in cases where there is a complete absence of large BBB junctional gaps, mission-designed strategies, including a combination of cytopenetration, cytolocomotion, and histonatation, would likely permit access to the neuropil (Freitas, 1999b, 2003, 2016).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Freitas, 1999b
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Freitas, 2003 source
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Freitas, 2016

In the paper

“Optical interrogation of individual cells and organelles with a spatial resolution of ∼100 nm might be enabled through the use of carbon-nanotube-based endoscopes that project from B/CI nanorobots (Singhal et al., 2011).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Singhal et al., 2011 source

In the paper

“The geometry of the spine neck determines the rate of calcium efflux into the dendrite shaft and hence the degree of elevation of calcium concentrations within the spine head, following n-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) activation (Bloodgood and Sabatini, 2005; Alvarez and Sabatini, 2007; Sheng and Hoogenraad, 2007).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bloodgood and Sabatini, 2005 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Alvarez and Sabatini, 2007 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sheng and Hoogenraad, 2007 source

In the paper

“Thus, total volume displaced by endoneurobots and gliabots would be ∼0.12% of a “typical” ∼14,000 μm3 neuron volume, which is orders of magnitude below the total 1–10% “safe” tissue and organ intrusiveness limit for nanorobots that has been recommended elsewhere (Freitas, 2003).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Freitas, 2003 source

In the paper

“This provides some level of information redundancy and suggests that monitoring all dendritic spine organelles and molecular components is likely unnecessary.”

In the paper

“LTD causes α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA) receptor internalization with spine elongation and/or shrinkage of spine heads, due to actin depolymerization (Bourne and Harris, 2008).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bourne and Harris, 2008 source

In the paper

“Synaptobots may deduce a great deal of useful information subsequent to scanning the gross volume and shape of the spine.”

In the paper

“Events involving LTP and LTD structural changes to dendritic spines can alter spine number, size, shape, and subcellular composition in both immature and mature spines (Bourne and Harris, 2008).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bourne and Harris, 2008 source

In the paper

“This information redundancy is expected to significantly reduce synaptobot monitoring tasks.”

In the paper

“The synaptobot population represents a more significant neuralnanorobot intrusion on the volume of the human brain.”

In the paper

“Thus, a small percentage of the 0.5 μm3 synaptobots might encounter difficulty in accessing distal axonic and dendritic regions via strictly intracellular navigation.”

In the paper

“A similar volume will be displaced by gliabots, given one 10 μm3 gliabot within each of the 84.6 × 109 brain-resident glial cells (Azevedo et al., 2009), displacing another ∼0.06% of brain volume.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Azevedo et al., 2009 source

In the paper

“The PSD dynamically regulates its components through protein phosphorylation, palmitoylation, local protein translation, the ubiquitin-proteasome system for protein degradation, and redistribution of specific proteins (e.g., CaMKIIα, AMPARs) both entering and leaving the PSD (Kim and Ko, 2006; Sheng and Hoogenraad, 2007).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kim and Ko, 2006 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sheng and Hoogenraad, 2007 source