ReviewACS nano2025
Interfacing with the Brain: How Nanotechnology Can Contribute.
Review in ACS nano, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Neuromorphic Microstructures Control In Vitro Early-Stage Neuronal Outgrowth.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- PolyGraph - Flexible, Biocompatible & Electrically Optimized Graphene-Polymer Composites for Next-Generation Neural Interfaces.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- A Sustainable Alternative to PVDF for Neural Tissue Engineering via Piezoelectric PHBV and Cellulose Acetate Fibers.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2026Article
- Ethical Precision in Nanoscale Brain Interfacing.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Functional Disorder at the Neural Interface: How Disordered Nanostructures Promote Proper Growth and Differentiation in In Vitro Neural Cultures.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Conductive Hydrogel-Enabled Electrode for Scalp Electroencephalography Monitoring.Small methods · 2026Review
- A novel biomacromolecule-predominated hybrid unit: from design, characterization to application.National science review · 2026Article
- Poking Pluripotency: Nanoinjection Into Human iPSCs.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Article
- Smart Nanotechnologies for Multimodal Neuromodulation and Brain Interfacing.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Advancing neuroengineering with Neuromorphic Twins.Nature communications · 2026Review
- Janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway in schizophrenia (Review).Biomedical reports · 2026Review
- Brain-computer interfaces race to the clinic.Nature nanotechnology · 2025Article
- Predictive Wafer-Scale Copper Nanowire Fabrication Using Template-Assisted On-Substrate Electrodeposition.Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2025Article
- Advanced Brain-on-a-Chip for Wetware Computing: A Review.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- A Low-Cost Multimodal Testbed for Array-Based Electrophysiological Microelectrodes.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Design Strategies of PEDOT:PSS-Based Conductive Hydrogels and Their Applications in Health Monitoring.Polymers · 2025Review
- Sensing a rainbow of colors: algal photoreceptors.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
97 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Interfacing artificial devices with the human brain is the central goal of neurotechnology. Yet, our imaginations are often limited by currently available paradigms and technologies. Suggestions for brain-machine interfaces have changed over time, along with the available technology. Mechanical levers and cable winches were used to move parts of the brain during the mechanical age. Sophisticated electronic wiring and remote control have arisen during the electronic age, ultimately leading to plug-and-play computer interfaces. Nonetheless, our brains are so complex that these visions, until recently, largely remained unreachable dreams. The general problem, thus far, is that most of our technology is mechanically and/or electrically engineered, whereas the brain is a living, dynamic entity. As a result, these worlds are difficult to interface with one another. Nanotechnology, which encompasses engineered solid-state objects and integrated circuits, excels at small length scales of single to a few hundred nanometers and, thus, matches the sizes of biomolecules, biomolecular assemblies, and parts of cells. Consequently, we envision nanomaterials and nanotools as opportunities to interface with the brain in alternative ways. Here, we review the existing literature on the use of nanotechnology in brain-machine interfaces and look forward in discussing perspectives and limitations based on the authors' expertise across a range of complementary disciplines─from neuroscience, engineering, physics, and chemistry to biology and medicine, computer science and mathematics, and social science and jurisprudence. We focus on nanotechnology but also include information from related fields when useful and complementary.
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.