Brain-computer interfaces, once the stuff of science fiction, are quickly moving from research labs into clinics and, eventually, consumer markets.
The rapidly expanding brain-computer interface (BCI) field is not only driving cutting-edge neuroscience but also fueling a competitive race for market dominance. As companies race to bridge the gap between mind and machine, the field has split into two camps: implantable devices that promise unmatched precision but require brain surgery, and non-implantable systems that offer safer, more accessible alternatives.
From early pioneers in the 1970s to today’s high-profile players such as Synchron and Neuralink, the debate over which approach will shape the future of human–machine interaction has become one of the most consequential questions in neuroscience and technology.
What Is a BCI?
Jonathan Wolpaw, research professor at the University at Albany, describes a BCI in his paper Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control as “a communication system that allows direct interaction between the brain and an external device, bypassing the usual output pathways of peripheral nerves and muscles.” In short, BCIs bridge the brain and machines without relying on conventional muscle or nerve activity.
While BCIs are often framed as futuristic, their origins date back to the 1960s. In 1973, Jacques Vidal published the first paper using the term “brain-computer interface,” demonstrating how electroencephalographic (EEG) signals could be used for direct communication. Vidal’s pioneering work laid the foundation for all modern BCI research.
Decades later, Dr. Thomas Oxley, an interventional neurologist at Mount Sinai Hospital and CEO of Synchron, brought BCIs into clinical reality. Despite Elon Musk often being credited with popularizing the technology through Neuralink, Synchron was founded in 2012 with support from DARPA, and it began clinical human implants in Australia as early as 2019—well before Neuralink’s first human trial in 2023. Oxley’s minimally invasive “Stentrode” device gained global media attention years before Musk’s public demonstrations.
A Race Between Approaches
The history of BCIs sets the stage for a modern competition at the intersection of medicine, technology, and consumer markets. Companies worldwide are vying not only to advance neurological innovation but also to be the first to move BCIs from therapeutic applications into everyday consumer use. At the heart of this race is the debate: will the future be implantable, non-implantable, or something in between?
Implantable BCIs are devices surgically implanted directly into brain tissue, where electrodes record neural activity with high precision.
Carolina Aguilar, CEO and founder of INBRAIN Neuroelectronics, told The Debrief in an email that her company prefers “to think in terms of implantable and non-implantable BCIs rather than simply ‘invasive’ and ‘non-invasive.'”
“Implantable BCIs are devices placed directly on or in the brain,” Aguilar explained, “enabling high-resolution, real-time communication with neural circuits—essential when you need precise, therapeutic interventions.”
“Non-implantable BCIs, such as EEG headsets, sit outside the body and capture brain signals through the scalp, offering lower resolution but easier deployment,” she says. “The choice depends on the clinical need: implantables for precision therapy, non-implantables for accessibility and monitoring.”
Kurt Haggstrom, Chief Commercial Officer at Synchron, told The Debrief in an email that while implantable BCIs deliver the best neural signal quality, they also carry higher risks associated with surgical procedures.
“Non-invasive BCIs sit outside the skull and use technologies like EEG or MEG to read brain activity,” Haggstrom said. “They’re safer to deploy but have inherent limitations in resolution, stability, and bandwidth because the skull acts as a barrier.”
Implantable BCIs
Implantable BCIs are devices surgically implanted directly into brain tissue, usually within the cortex. They record neural activity with high precision, offering several advantages: high spatial and temporal resolution (very accurate signals), the ability to capture detailed neural activity for more complex control, and a better signal-to-noise ratio since electrodes are in direct contact with neurons.
“Traditional invasive BCIs offer high bandwidth and stable signal acquisition, enabling advanced use cases like robotic limb control or speech decoding,” Haggstrom explained.
“Invasive or implantable BCIs provide superior signal fidelity, stability, and decoding capabilities because they bypass the barriers of the skull and scalp,” he added. “This allows for high precision and controlled therapeutics—such as restoring lost motor or communication functions, controlling robotic limbs with fine movements, and delivering targeted neuromodulation—that demand high-bandwidth, low-noise neural data.”
There are also disadvantages: brain surgery risks such as infection, scarring, and damage; long-term stability concerns if the body rejects the implant or scar tissue builds up; and higher costs with greater complexity of maintenance.
“The downside is that they demand neurosurgery, which limits patient access and raises safety concerns. Our minimally invasive approach delivers many of these same performance benefits while using a familiar, widely adopted surgical route that interventional neurologists already perform routinely,” Haggstrom said.
Neuralink, founded by Elon Musk, has pushed implantable BCIs into the spotlight, though it has faced controversy, including allegations of animal cruelty. As of August 2025, Neuralink reports having nine human patients with its implant, “The Link.”
Synchron has pioneered a middle-ground approach with its endovascular BCI, the Stentrode. Delivered through blood vessels—similar to a cardiac stent—it avoids the need for open-brain surgery. “This enables high-fidelity, long-term neural recording and control, while dramatically reducing surgical risks and recovery times,” said Haggstrom.
Non-Implantable BCIs
Non-invasive BCIs, such as EEG headsets, sit on the scalp and capture brain signals. They offer accessibility, portability, and affordability, without surgical risk.
“This enables high-fidelity, long-term neural recording and control, while dramatically reducing surgical risks and recovery times compared to open-brain procedures,” Haggstrom says. Non-invasive BCIs, such as EEG headsets, sit on the scalp and capture brain signals. They offer accessibility, portability, and affordability without the risks associated with surgery.
“These systems are safer but have lower spatial and temporal resolution and are more susceptible to environmental noise,” Aguilar noted. “These limitations can impact performance in high-demand applications, particularly when precise, real-time control is required. In general, they have low therapeutic value.”
Andreas Forsland, CEO of Cognixion, a neurotechnology company developing non-invasive BCIs, outlined the disadvantages of implantable systems in an email to The Debrief.
“It requires surgery to implant it. If someone wants to remove it, they will need another surgical procedure to do so,” Forsland said. “In some cases, such as Synchron, the intravascular stent becomes permanently encased in tissue growth within the wall of the brain, meaning it can never be removed.”
Forsland cited risks including infection during surgery, electrode placement failures, degraded sensor performance, intracranial hemorrhage, and other potential complications.
“Non-invasive poses no surgical risk, and users can choose when they want to use it and when they don’t,” Forsland added. His company is currently developing non-invasive BCIs that combine augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI), directly competing with implant-focused ventures.
The Road Ahead
As BCIs transition from research labs to real-world applications, society faces a profound question: Will the future of human–machine integration rely on implants or wearable devices?
Whatever answer emerges in the years ahead could not only redefine how we communicate but also potentially expand our expectations of human potential, fundamentally reshaping our understanding of many aspects of human thought and other activities that define who and what we are today.
Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com.