5 ms·

Always good to see novel uses of ML. However, let's not pretend this will ever offer any benefit to people with spinal cord injuries. Any research that does no

Always good to see novel uses of ML. However, let's not pretend this will ever offer any benefit to people with spinal cord injuries. Any research that does not involve repairing the physical damage to the spinal cord itself is a distraction. Anyone who claims otherwise does not understand the physiology involved or is being deliberately disingenuous. It's hard to think of an apt analogy, but perhaps consider a patient who walks into a doctor's office with a broken arm. Instead of setting the break and applying a cast, the doctor offers them a referral to a psychologist to help them adjust to life with a broken arm.

_joel 3y ago
> Always good to see novel uses of ML. However, let's not pretend this will ever offer any benefit to people with spinal cord injuries. Apart from the person in their study who can now walk, that had the spinal injury (with the use of a crawler)... In relation to your second point, you are aware regenereative science and this implant approach can progress in parallel? This offers something tangible, plus with more refining can be rolled out en masse. What regenerative science can be applied now that would give such a quality of life improvement?
- 0xbadc0de5 3y ago
  The research subject has an incomplete C5/C6 injury and still cannot walk unassisted. Not to mention still has limited use of their hands and likely severely impacted somatosensation. It's not physically possible to manufacture implants dense enough to re-map the entirety (or even a useful fraction) of motor and sensory pathways. Attempting to implant a significant number of artificial electrodes also risks further damage. I'm not claiming that regenerative treatments and implants can't progress in parallel. I'm simply claiming implants are a dead-end and are distracting resources away from regenerative research.
  - _joel 3y ago
    You literally said this wouldn't help spinal injuries, which the PoC has and now you're changing it to 'unassisted' Do you have data to show funding gets moved away from regenerative research?
germinalphrase 3y ago
Do eye glasses not offer any benefit to people with poor eyesight because the doctor can’t fix their eyes?
- zeendo 3y ago
  Distraction. Dentures? Distraction. Prosthetic arms and legs? Distraction. Why aren't we regrowing limbs yet? Lizards can do it. Follow the money.
pdabbadabba 3y ago
From the abstract: > Moreover, neurorehabilitation supported by the BSI improved neurological recovery. The participant regained the ability to walk with crutches overground even when the BSI was switched off. This digital bridge establishes a framework to restore natural control of movement after paralysis. So, not only did the brain–spine interface ("BSI") itself allow the patent to walk when they couldn't before (which strikes me as an absolute win, even if you call it a distraction) but it also facilitated neurological recovery over the longer term.
- nashashmi 3y ago
  The part where the patient was able to turn the device off and still walk with handicap was the part that knocked it out of the park. I am more interested in how well was the patient able to recover, fully or with care? And is there a possibility that the device can be removed entirely?
- Arrath 3y ago
  Oh, whoa, that is pretty incredible!
snapcaster 3y ago
This seems like such a bad take i'm assuming it's trolling? A person couldn't walk, and now they can. How is that a "distraction"?
- 0xbadc0de5 3y ago
  If it seems like an absurd take, please at least consider that perhaps I'm not the one who's missing something, that perhaps I have decades of experience following the research and its results. I understand it's a bad look to shit on what should be a positive story: technology fixes disabled man, news at 11. But these types of treatments have been around for at least 25 years and always end up the same - a big hype cycle, some funding grants for the researchers, a few grads get their Phd's, then everyone realizes it doesn't actually work, the effects were mostly placebo or attributed to other factors (such as the surgical installation of the implant alleviating undiagnosed pressure on the nerves), then it goes quiet for a couple years until people forget and the cycle repeats. People who don't actually live with or understand spinal cord injury often fall into the trap of thinking that "if we can just make their legs move, then they're fixed!" Completely ignoring that somatosensation (sensory feedback) is probably 2/3 or more of the signal and implants can't communicate that at all. It's difficult for many able-bodied people to understand that spinal cord injuries are not the same as needing glasses (to address another comment). Not the same ballpark, not even the same sport. One must ask the question of what the goal of the research is? Is the goal to restore spinal cord function or is the goal to advance BMI technology? When your funding source and research institution are committed to a particular path, the "goal" starts to take whatever shape is necessary to align with the former two. I suppose it's only fair for me to consider that perhaps the goal is better BMI's instead of restoring spinal cord function. To which I would have to applaud the effort. However, I have it on good authority that given the option, those suffering from spinal cord injuries would rather see more research going toward solving the problem and not the symptom.
  - maybelsyrup 3y ago
    > If it seems like an absurd take, please at least consider that perhaps I'm not the one who's missing something, that perhaps I have decades of experience following the research and its results But if that's the case why are you talking like you're talking in your comment above? > Any research that does not involve repairing the physical damage to the spinal cord itself is a distraction. People think you're trolling because this is how trolling sounds. > please at least consider that perhaps I'm not the one who's missing something, that perhaps I have decades of experience following the research and its results The woe-is-me passive-aggression isn't helping your cause, dude. Share what you know, nicely, even if you're disagreeing with something, and people won't jump on you.
SpliffnCola 3y ago
I'm a paraplegic, what are you even getting at? I'd do anything to be able to walk again.

_joel 3y ago

> Always good to see novel uses of ML. However, let's not pretend this will ever offer any benefit to people with spinal cord injuries. Apart from the person in their study who can now walk, that had the spinal injury (with the use of a crawler)... In relation to your second point, you are aware regenereative science and this implant approach can progress in parallel? This offers something tangible, plus with more refining can be rolled out en masse. What regenerative science can be applied now that would give such a quality of life improvement?

0xbadc0de5 3y ago
The research subject has an incomplete C5/C6 injury and still cannot walk unassisted. Not to mention still has limited use of their hands and likely severely impacted somatosensation. It's not physically possible to manufacture implants dense enough to re-map the entirety (or even a useful fraction) of motor and sensory pathways. Attempting to implant a significant number of artificial electrodes also risks further damage. I'm not claiming that regenerative treatments and implants can't progress in parallel. I'm simply claiming implants are a dead-end and are distracting resources away from regenerative research.
- _joel 3y ago
  You literally said this wouldn't help spinal injuries, which the PoC has and now you're changing it to 'unassisted' Do you have data to show funding gets moved away from regenerative research?

germinalphrase 3y ago

Do eye glasses not offer any benefit to people with poor eyesight because the doctor can’t fix their eyes?

zeendo 3y ago
Distraction. Dentures? Distraction. Prosthetic arms and legs? Distraction. Why aren't we regrowing limbs yet? Lizards can do it. Follow the money.

pdabbadabba 3y ago

From the abstract: > Moreover, neurorehabilitation supported by the BSI improved neurological recovery. The participant regained the ability to walk with crutches overground even when the BSI was switched off. This digital bridge establishes a framework to restore natural control of movement after paralysis. So, not only did the brain–spine interface ("BSI") itself allow the patent to walk when they couldn't before (which strikes me as an absolute win, even if you call it a distraction) but it also facilitated neurological recovery over the longer term.

nashashmi 3y ago
The part where the patient was able to turn the device off and still walk with handicap was the part that knocked it out of the park. I am more interested in how well was the patient able to recover, fully or with care? And is there a possibility that the device can be removed entirely?
Arrath 3y ago
Oh, whoa, that is pretty incredible!

snapcaster 3y ago

This seems like such a bad take i'm assuming it's trolling? A person couldn't walk, and now they can. How is that a "distraction"?

0xbadc0de5 3y ago
If it seems like an absurd take, please at least consider that perhaps I'm not the one who's missing something, that perhaps I have decades of experience following the research and its results. I understand it's a bad look to shit on what should be a positive story: technology fixes disabled man, news at 11. But these types of treatments have been around for at least 25 years and always end up the same - a big hype cycle, some funding grants for the researchers, a few grads get their Phd's, then everyone realizes it doesn't actually work, the effects were mostly placebo or attributed to other factors (such as the surgical installation of the implant alleviating undiagnosed pressure on the nerves), then it goes quiet for a couple years until people forget and the cycle repeats. People who don't actually live with or understand spinal cord injury often fall into the trap of thinking that "if we can just make their legs move, then they're fixed!" Completely ignoring that somatosensation (sensory feedback) is probably 2/3 or more of the signal and implants can't communicate that at all. It's difficult for many able-bodied people to understand that spinal cord injuries are not the same as needing glasses (to address another comment). Not the same ballpark, not even the same sport. One must ask the question of what the goal of the research is? Is the goal to restore spinal cord function or is the goal to advance BMI technology? When your funding source and research institution are committed to a particular path, the "goal" starts to take whatever shape is necessary to align with the former two. I suppose it's only fair for me to consider that perhaps the goal is better BMI's instead of restoring spinal cord function. To which I would have to applaud the effort. However, I have it on good authority that given the option, those suffering from spinal cord injuries would rather see more research going toward solving the problem and not the symptom.
- maybelsyrup 3y ago
  > If it seems like an absurd take, please at least consider that perhaps I'm not the one who's missing something, that perhaps I have decades of experience following the research and its results But if that's the case why are you talking like you're talking in your comment above? > Any research that does not involve repairing the physical damage to the spinal cord itself is a distraction. People think you're trolling because this is how trolling sounds. > please at least consider that perhaps I'm not the one who's missing something, that perhaps I have decades of experience following the research and its results The woe-is-me passive-aggression isn't helping your cause, dude. Share what you know, nicely, even if you're disagreeing with something, and people won't jump on you.

SpliffnCola 3y ago

I'm a paraplegic, what are you even getting at? I'd do anything to be able to walk again.