Elon Musk says Neuralink will scale implants and automate brain surgery by 2026. The claim raises questions about how invasive BCIs fit clinical, financial, and patient realities.

Northwestern’s wireless micro-LED implant writes patterned light signals into cortex, showing optogenetics as a potential input channel and outlining what still blocks products.

Given this mix of acceleration and backlash, it’s worth asking a simple question: are BCIs still overhyped, and if so, where exactly is the gap between story and reality?

Tech billionaires are flooding into neurotech, backing brain-computer interfaces across invasive and non-invasive approaches. Their capital is accelerating progress while raising questions about control, incentives, and who shapes this technology.

A new entrant is forming in the brain–computer interface space with unusually deep capital, strong AI ties, and ambitions that may extend beyond medicine, adding a fresh dynamic to an already competitive neurotech field.

Most wearables infer how we feel from the body. A new class of consumer neurotechnology instead measures the brain directly, offering a window into attention, fatigue, and cognitive load during everyday work.

Parkinson’s disease unfolds continuously, yet care remains episodic. By turning everyday wearables into sources of clinical signal, a new approach is emerging that reframes how neurological disease is measured, tracked, and managed.

A new generation of brain–computer interfaces is emerging with a different philosophy: minimise invasiveness, prioritise safety, and fit real clinical workflows. Precision Neuroscience exemplifies this shift toward practical neurotechnology.