For instance, an electronic calculator is a cognitive prosthesis, ..
Cognitive Neural Prosthetics | Annual Review of …
The CYBERnetic LowEr-Limb CoGnitive Ortho-prosthesiS Plus Plus
The authors further stratified study subjects into three groups ("High", "Intermediate", or "Low") based on expert opinion regarding functional levels within the MFCL category. Subject performance on the ADAPT testing circuit was further stratified by specific sections of the test. The ADAPT test circuit presents three separate sets of physical challenges, each addressing discrete subsets of skills or abilities that become increasingly challenging. Activity Subset 1 (AS1) focuses on activities that require adequate balance, Activity Subset 2 (AS2) focuses on actions that challenge muscle strength and weight distribution, and Activity Subset 3 (AS3) focuses on actions dependent upon prosthesis-related and cognitive skills. The authors reported a large variation in the functional performance level seen within the study's MFCL-2 population, as well as between prosthetic devices. The Low functional level subjects demonstrated no benefit from a microprocessor controlled prosthesis at any level of the test. Both Intermediate and High group subjects were reported to have significant improvements in performance of AS2 activities, with the High group performing significantly better than the Intermediate group. For AS3 activities, only the High group demonstrated any benefit. Inter-device comparison found that the High group performed significantly better with both computerized prostheses in AS1, but none in AS2. In AS3, the High group had significantly better times only when subjects wore the C-Leg Compact Device, but not the standard C-leg. In contrast, the intermediate group only had significant improvements in AS2 with the standard C-leg, but not with the more advanced C-Leg compact device.
Another way to approach the idea is by comparison with the use of prosthetic limbs. After a while, a good prosthetic limb functions not as a mere tool but as a non-biological bodily part. Increasingly, the form and structure of such limbs is geared to specific functions (consider the carbon-fiber running blades of the Olympic and Paralympic athlete ) and does not replicate the full form and structure of the original biological template. As our information-processing technologies improve and become better and better adapted to fit the niche provided by the biological brain, they become more like cognitive prosthetics: non-biological circuits that come to function as parts of the material underpinnings of minds like ours.
Cognitive Prosthetics and Mind Uploading – Richard …
Although the evidence continues to evolve, it is reasonable to consider microprocessor controlled lower limb prostheses appropriate for a select group of individuals meeting strict criteria for fitness, health and daily utilization expectations. However, these devices may not be appropriate for all potential users. Since the device produces definite but marginal improvements in functional capacity by reducing oxygen consumption and improving walking speed and safety when ambulating in more challenging environments (e.g., long distances, uneven terrain, regular use of stairs) the device is appropriate for users who face those challenges regularly. In addition, the device requires substantial training to allow for faster than normal walking speed and a user should have adequate cognitive learning ability to master the higher level technology. The criteria set forth above assist in the identification of potential users for whom the device may represent an improvement in functional capacity.
An article by Williams and colleagues (2006) describes a randomized two-group cross-over design study of C-Leg versus a standard hydraulic knee prosthesis (Mauch SNS® knee). Subjects were given a 3 month acclimation period for each device prior to testing. This study was not blinded and was hampered by a significant drop-out rate (56%) that left only 8 participants in the evaluable study population. The findings concluded that in non-demanding walking conditions with experienced amputees, participants reported the C-Leg required less cognitive attention than the non-computerized knee. However, this subjective experience did not translate into improved performance on neuropsychologic screening instruments or walking speed.
MindSweeper: Toward Haptic Cognitive Prosthesis
Tom�s Vega, Corten C. Singer, Bjoern Hartmann, Eric Paulos, Michel Maharbiz, Jan Rabaey. "MindSweeper: Toward Haptic Cognitive Prosthesis". Talk or presentation, 26, October, 2016; Poster presented at the .
The hippocampus often is damaged after stroke, extended epilepsy, as a consequence of aging (e.g., Alzheimer's disease), and in association with blunt head trauma. The REMIND cognitive prosthesis, which is designed to mimic the internal neural signal processing of the hippocampus, is functionally "connected" to the brain through multi-electrode arrays, such that information which normally flows to the hippocampus instead is re-routed to the neural prosthesis. The prosthesis performs hippocampal-like nonlinear transformations of the multi-signal input dynamics; as a consequence, the multi-signal output of the prosthesis is coded appropriately to function as output of the hippocampus. Through a second set of multi-electrode arrays, output of the prosthesis is used to electrically stimulate output neurons of the hippocampus, and thus, codes for new memories are sent to non-hippocampal parts of the brain for long-term storage. After having successfully developed such a prosthesis for the rat brain, the project now is focusing on both a memory prosthesis for the hippocampus, and an “executive function” prosthesis for the prefrontal cortex, of non-human primates (rhesus monkeys).
Toward the HMD as a cognitive prosthesis
Cognitive Control Signals for Neural Prosthetics
A Nonlinear Model for Hippocampal Cognitive Prosthesis: Memory Facilitation by Hippocampal Ensemble Stimulation
A cognitive prosthesis for complex decision-making | …
Neosymbiosis, How Humans and Software Benefit from Multi-Agent Cognitive Prosthesis
The REMIND cognitive prosthesis, ..
(AS3) focuses on actions dependent upon prosthesis-related and cognitive skills.
Brain implant boosts memory for first time ever - NBC News
Such an idea is not new. Versions can be found in the work of James, Heidegger, Bateson, Merleau-Ponty, Dennett, and many others. But we seem to be entering an age in which cognitive prosthetics (which have always been around in one form or another) are displaying a kind of Cambrian explosion of new and potent forms. As the forms proliferate, and some become more entrenched, we might do well to pause and reflect on their nature and status. At the very least, minds like ours are the products not of neural processing alone but of the complex and iterated interplay between brains, bodies, and the many designer environments in which we increasingly live and work.
Egyptologists Examine 'Sensational' Discovery
A neural prosthesis is a device that aims to restore or replace the functions of the nervous system that are lost to disease or injury. Examples include devices to improve hearing, vision, motor and cognitive functions. Neural prostheses artificially stimulate the nervous system to convey sensory information, activate paralysed muscles or modulate the excitability of neural circuits to improve conditions such as chronic pain, epilepsy or tremor. Some neuroprostheses also record activity from the nervous system, which can be useful for patients who have difficulty moving or communicating. These devices can decipher the intention of the user or detect ongoing brain events such as seizures by recording neural signals directly from the brain. Emerging neuroprostheses aim to ‘close the loop’ using recorded neural activity to control stimulation delivered elsewhere in the nervous system with the goal of improving function.
Cooper Hewitt Presents “Access+Ability” with More …
One publication by Hafner and others (2007) reports the findings of a small, nonrandomized, cross-over controlled design study in which each subject was exposed to two different prosthetic limb conditions (mechanical and microprocessor controlled C-Leg) twice during the trial. This study included 21 subjects, each of whom used both a standard mechanical knee and lower limb prosthesis and the C-Leg microprocessor controlled prosthesis. Subjects were recruited for participation from a local amputee population. Seventeen subjects completed the study. Subjects were told at the time of enrollment that they would be allowed to keep the test prosthesis whether or not they completed the trial. The subjects began the trial with a 2 month period using their standard prosthesis followed by an activity assessment and functional, performance and subjective perception evaluation. Next, all subjects used the microprocessor controlled prosthesis until acclimation was demonstrated. This was then followed by a 2 month acclimation period with the microprocessor controlled prosthesis, ending with an activity assessment and functional, performance and subjective perception evaluation. Subjects were then reverted back to the standard prosthesis for 2 weeks and again an activity assessment and functional, performance and subjective perception evaluation was done. In the final stage of the trial, participants were allowed to use either one or both prosthetic devices over a 4-month period. Daily use and activity levels were measured for each device. The study concluded with a final activity assessment and functional performance and subjective perception evaluation with the microprocessor controlled device. A variety of objective and subjective outcome measures were reported. The authors reported no significant differences between the two prosthetic devices in terms of daily activity as measured by mean daily step frequency and mean estimated step distance, in performance on level or varied surfaces, or in cognitive demand during use of the devices. They did note a significant improvement with the C-Leg prosthesis in subjects' Stair Assessment Index (SAI) scores, time to descend scores, and a surveyed preference for the microprocessor controlled C-Leg as compared with a mechanical prosthetic knee. There was no difference noted in ascending stairs, but self-reported frequency of stumbles and falls was lower for the C-Leg prosthesis. Limitations of this study include its small size, lack of outcome comparisons to a group randomized to continued use of a standard prosthesis, and lack of control of the type of mechanical prosthesis used. In addition, the period of time allowed for the subject to revert back to a standard prosthesis (2 weeks) for a functional assessment prior to the 4-month combined use measures was quite limited.
"I have always been impressed by the quick turnaround and your thoroughness. Easily the most professional essay writing service on the web."
"Your assistance and the first class service is much appreciated. My essay reads so well and without your help I'm sure I would have been marked down again on grammar and syntax."
"Thanks again for your excellent work with my assignments. No doubts you're true experts at what you do and very approachable."
"Very professional, cheap and friendly service. Thanks for writing two important essays for me, I wouldn't have written it myself because of the tight deadline."
"Thanks for your cautious eye, attention to detail and overall superb service. Thanks to you, now I am confident that I can submit my term paper on time."
"Thank you for the GREAT work you have done. Just wanted to tell that I'm very happy with my essay and will get back with more assignments soon."