4 ms·
>>brain has an easier time fighting infections [vs bones] While the brain has better blood supply than the hard outer parts of bones, which tends to accelerate
by toss1 4y ago
>>brain has an easier time fighting infections [vs bones]
While the brain has better blood supply than the hard outer parts of bones, which tends to accelerate healing, the brain also relies heavily on the blood-brain barrier to keep out many threats. Crossing the blood-brain barrier is a big deal, and we shouldn't assume automatically that it'll heal better.
>>it's not completely necessary to have a physical connection to the outside
INDEED! This is completely key, as having a continuous surface breaking to just under the skin is a huge infection problem that must be continually cleaned and monitored, and having one right into the brain is a truly scary high-risk proposition. So successfully encapsulating and sealing it behind the blood-brain barrier is essential.
The problem is that this means wireless communication at a meaningful data rate, through the meninges encasing the brain, the scull, and scalp. This means power consumption, power supply, and necessary power supply replacement operations - into the brain, again.
The biology side is not trivial, even as we advance the electronics side, but I'm very much looking forward to these hurdles being overcome!
- bayesian_horse 4y agoElectrodes would usually be mounted on the surface of the brain, outside the blood-brain barrier of course. That's plenty close enough for most purposes.
- toss1 4y agoThat'd help, but it is really not the same as fine electrodes talking to just one or a pair or triplet of neurons. Once we're out there, we're either using an array and a lot of signal processing (sort of reverse synthetic aperture radar processing) to identify detailed signals, or just using aggregate signals. In which case, why not use more gathering points and processing power and just go outside the scalp, avoiding infection problems entirely?