ReviewiScience2022
Clinical neuroscience and neurotechnology: An amazing symbiosis.
Review in iScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Virtual Reality Dataset to Support Hand Action Observation in Rehabilitation and Motor Learning Studies.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Capturing the Electrical Activity of all Cortical Neurons: Are Solutions Within Reach?Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Transformer-based long-term predictor of subthalamic beta activity in Parkinson's disease.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2025Article
- The grand challenge at the frontiers of neurotechnology and its emerging clinical applications.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Advancements in brain-machine interfaces for application in the metaverse.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
- Ethics and Governance of Neurotechnology in Africa: Lessons From AI.JMIR neurotechnology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the last decades, clinical neuroscience found a novel ally in neurotechnologies, devices able to record and stimulate electrical activity in the nervous system. These technologies improved the ability to diagnose and treat neural disorders. Neurotechnologies are concurrently enabling a deeper understanding of healthy and pathological dynamics of the nervous system through stimulation and recordings during brain implants. On the other hand, clinical neurosciences are not only driving neuroengineering toward the most relevant clinical issues, but are also shaping the neurotechnologies thanks to clinical advancements. For instance, understanding the etiology of a disease informs the location of a therapeutic stimulation, but also the way stimulation patterns should be designed to be more effective/naturalistic. Here, we describe cases of fruitful integration such as Deep Brain Stimulation and cortical interfaces to highlight how this symbiosis between clinical neuroscience and neurotechnology is closer to a novel integrated framework than to a simple interdisciplinary interaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.