Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Brain Computer Interface for Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Improvement

  1. #11
    National Science Foundation (NSF) : LINK is entirely a different federally funded area of science that researchers can apply for grants.

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense" With an annual budget of $7.5 billion (FY 2016), we are the funding source for approximately 24 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities. In many fields such as mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing.

    We fulfill our mission chiefly by issuing limited-term grants -- currently about 12,000 new awards per year, with an average duration of three years -- to fund specific research proposals that have been judged the most promising by a rigorous and objective merit-review system. Most of these awards go to individuals or small groups of investigators. Others provide funding for research centers, instruments and facilities that allow scientists, engineers and students to work at the outermost frontiers of knowledge.

    This post about "Brain computer interface" would definitely fall within this description for funding. They don't fund medicine here at the NSF in the same way as the National Institute of Health (NIH) does. People tend to mix apples and oranges on these two organizations. They fund entirely different areas of "science". Grant money with the NSF in no way takes away from an NIH grant.

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

    This is a video about the National Institute of Health (NIH) specifically the NINDS Program Director, Lyn Jakeman explaining biological SCI funding and all the various different areas of the NIH that fund projects for spinal cord injury.



    https://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/congressional_testimony/ninds_fy_2016_cj.htm

    You do not see a whole lot of national lobbying efforts from small non-profit orgs and charities for various reasons. One important one is that they're quite limited due to IRS rules about influencing without losing their tax exempt status. It's a very fine line. Without that tax exempt status, you probably wouldn't see much in the way of SCI organizations trying to help out. LINK.

    Last edited by GRAMMY; 02-06-2016 at 12:15 AM.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by GRAMMY View Post
    Could this help also people with cauda equina injury (second motor neuron damage)?
    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post
    Could this help also people with cauda equina injury (second motor neuron damage)?
    Probably not. Anything that involves stimulating nerves or muscles needs an intact lower motor neuron. Without an intact lower motor neuron, the neuromuscular junction itself must be stimulated, which is a vastly different process than regular FES, transcutaneous, or implanted stimulation.

  4. #14
    Cauda equine is not a typical diagnosis, developing in only 4 to 7 out of every 10,000 to 100,000 patients, and is more likely to occur proximally.[7][8][9] Disc herniation is reportedly the most common cause of CES, and it is thought that 1 to 2% of all surgical disc herniation cases result in CES.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauda_equina_syndrome

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by tomsonite View Post
    Probably not. Anything that involves stimulating nerves or muscles needs an intact lower motor neuron. Without an intact lower motor neuron, the neuromuscular junction itself must be stimulated, which is a vastly different process than regular FES, transcutaneous, or implanted stimulation.
    Thanks for the clarification, is it correct that anyone with an injury below T10 may have damaged the lower motor neuron?
    I believe Wise has explained that before, but I could find where he posted about that.
    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by GRAMMY View Post
    Cauda equine is not a typical diagnosis, developing in only 4 to 7 out of every 10,000 to 100,000 patients, and is more likely to occur proximally.[7][8][9] Disc herniation is reportedly the most common cause of CES, and it is thought that 1 to 2% of all surgical disc herniation cases result in CES.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauda_equina_syndrome
    Could you clarify what "developing in only 4 to 7 out of every 10,000 to 100,000 patients" means?

    Maybe this study is more accurate http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17143890
    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post
    Could you clarify what "developing in only 4 to 7 out of every 10,000 to 100,000 patients" means?
    Maybe this study is more accurate http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17143890
    No, there isn't a need to clarify anything.
    I'm sure your accurate study gave us more than enough enlightenment on what "a small handful of people" amounts to.
    (3.4/1.5 per million, and period prevalence of 8.9/4.5 per 100,000 population were calculated)...




    Last edited by GRAMMY; 02-11-2016 at 10:33 AM.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by GRAMMY View Post
    No, there isn't a need to clarify anything.
    I'm sure your accurate study gave us more than enough enlightenment on what "a small handful of people" amounts to.
    (3.4/1.5 per million, and period prevalence of 8.9/4.5 per 100,000 population were calculated)...




    __________________________________________________ _________________________________________
    God only knows; at times it's like listening to Bubba J struggling to narrate Nascar from the Vatican City. - Jeff Dunham

    I just asked if BCI could help people with damage to the second motor neuron. I am not sure why you pointed out that the number of people with this kind of SCI are a minority of the whole SCI community instead of answering my question. You seemed to suggest we should not worry about them because they are "a small handful of people".

    I think it is important for people who are excited about BCI to know if it is something that can work for them or not even if there was just one person with lower motor neuron damage reading.

    Just my opinion, now you don't need to waste more time with one more answer.
    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

  9. #19
    ...
    Last edited by GRAMMY; 02-06-2016 at 08:59 PM. Reason: double post

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post
    Could you clarify what "developing in only 4 to 7 out of every 10,000 to 100,000 patients" means?

    Maybe this study is more accurate http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17143890
    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post

    I still believe we should focus on finding a biological cure and leave this approaches aside because it will take long time before you can make it work decently for people and a natural recovery of function would still be much better and not more distant in the future IMO.

    Also consider that for people who have lost the second motor neuron regeneration is the only option.

    Everyone has been told many times there will not be a one size fits all proposed therapy or treatment we know about so far that's being researched. We don't have a single one across the finish line for any level of injury because it's not that simple. There may be a small handful of people that couldn't get anything from brain computer interface (4-7 people within a 10k-100k range) due to the type of damage they have in their cords. That would be true of many different therapies being worked on for all the various injury types and levels in the clinical trials (regenerative or not). It IS the nature of the beast. Get over it Paolo! Tomsonite explained LMN when you asked about that a couple days ago.

    You specifically wanted to point out the precise tenth of a fraction in your link to show how terribly important it is for an exact more "accurate" number after I'd already given the simple statistic on LMN injury. (You looked up the answer to your own question and posted the link to it). Remember? I did not make any suggestions on anybody's future treatment importance or choices since there are none at this point in time in the first place. There are no LMN treatments at the clinic no matter how large or small that population may be (biological or otherwise).

    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post
    Just my opinion, now you don't need to waste more time with one more answer.
    What? You're dismissing me now after you came here to the thread I posted to engage me in false innuendo and accusation based on a SCI injury level or research project you don't like? How magnanimous of you dear boy! Technology marches on without you.
    Last edited by GRAMMY; 02-09-2016 at 09:57 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-03-2014, 07:32 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-19-2011, 10:26 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 07:48 PM
  4. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 02:10 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 09:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •