Nanomaterial-Enabled Sensing for Coupling of Implantable Bcis and Prosthesis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/ydt6kj53Keywords:
Implantable brain-computer interfaces (BCI); Nanomaterials; Neural Prosthesis; Closed-loop control.Abstract
Amputation caused by trauma, vascular diseases, etc., has created a global demand for high-performance prosthesis technology. Traditional electromyographic prostheses are limited by low signal fidelity and a lack of natural feedback, while implantable brain-computer interfaces still face bottlenecks such as insufficient signal stability and biocompatibility. Nanomaterials offer new possibilities to break through this dilemma. This article reviews the role of nanomaterial-enabled sensing technology in the collaborative control of implantable brain-computer interfaces and neural prostheses. The key mechanisms in improving electrochemical performance, matching mechanical flexibility, and regulating biological activity are analyzed emphatically. Through the representative studies of graphene, MXene, liquid metal, and biological hybrid interfaces, the significant advantages of nanostructures in reducing impedance, improving signal-to-noise ratio, and long-term stability are demonstrated, and the performance gain and closed-loop control potential in cross-scale systems are discussed. This paper summarizes that implanted electrodes can achieve a high signal-to-noise ratio, low delay, and multi-channel stable acquisition, but the problem of signal attenuation and biocompatibility is still prominent under long-term implantation conditions. In the future, collaborative optimization at the material and system levels is still needed. At the same time, this paper points out the emerging directions such as self-healing electrodes, bionic closed-loop systems, and organoid interfaces, which will promote brain-computer interfaces to be clinically feasible and natural interaction.
Downloads
References
[1] McDonald C L, Westcott-McCoy C L, Weaver M R, Haagsma J, Kartin D. Global prevalence of traumatic non-fatal limb amputation. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364620972258
[2] Pro Medical East. Limb loss statistics, facts and demographics. Pro Medical East, 2021. Available at: https://promedeast.com/limb-loss-statistics-facts-demographics.
[3] Resnik L J, Borgia M L, Clark M A. Prevalence and predictors of unmet need for upper limb prostheses: an observational cohort study. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0000000000000477
[4] Biddiss E A, Chau T T. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 2007, 31(3): 236–257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03093640600994581
[5] Salminger S, Stino H, Pichler L, et al. Current rates of prosthetic usage in upper-limb amputees—have innovations had an impact on device acceptance? Disability and Rehabilitation, 2022.
[6] Li J, Cheng Y, Gu M, Yang Z, Zhan L, Du Z. Sensing and stimulation applications of carbon nanomaterials in implantable brain-computer interface. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2023, 24: 5182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24065182
[7] Ortiz-Catalan M, Zbinden J, Millenaar J, et al. A highly integrated bionic hand with neural control and feedback for use in daily life. Science Robotics, 2023, 8(83): eadf7360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.adf7360
[8] Flesher S N, Downey J E, Weiss J M, et al. A brain-computer interface that evokes tactile sensations improves robotic arm control. Science, 2021, 372(6544): 831–836. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd0380
[9] Collinger J L, Wodlinger B, Downey J E, et al. High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet, 2013, 381(9866): 557–564. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61816-9
[10] Willett F R, Avansino D T, Hochberg L R, Henderson J M, Shenoy K V. High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting. Nature, 2021, 593(7858): 249–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03506-2
[11] Hochberg L, Bacher D, Jarosiewicz B, et al. Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature, 2012, 485: 372–375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11076
[12] Musk E, Neuralink. An integrated brain-machine interface platform with thousands of channels. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2019, 21(10): e16194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/16194
[13] Colachis S C IV, Downey J E, Flesher S N, et al. Long-term intracortical microelectrode array performance in a human clinical trial. Journal of Neural Engineering, 2021, 18(4): 0460c5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ac1add
[14] Raspopovic S, Capogrosso M, Petrini F, et al. Restoring natural sensory feedback in real-time bidirectional hand prostheses. Science Translational Medicine, 2014, 6(222): 222ra19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3006820
[15] Sun C, Cheng Z, Abu-Halimah J, Tian B. Perspectives on tissue-like bioelectronics for neural modulation. iScience, 2023, 26(5): 106715. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.106715
[16] Jabban L, Dupan S, Zhang D, Ainsworth B, Nazarpour K, Metcalfe B W. Sensory feedback for upper-limb prostheses: opportunities and barriers. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 2022, 30: 738–747. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2022.3159186
[17] Kwon Y W, Kim E, Koh C S, et al. Implantable soft neural electrodes of liquid metals for deep brain stimulation. ACS Nano, 2025, 19(7): 7337–7349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.4c18030
[18] Boufidis D, Garg R, Angelopoulos E, Cullen D K, Vitale F. Bio-inspired electronics: soft, biohybrid, and “living” neural interfaces. Nature Communications, 2025, 16(1): 1861. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-57016-0
[19] Guo Z, Wang F, Wang L, et al. A flexible neural implant with ultrathin substrate for low-invasive brain–computer interface applications. Microsystems and Nanoengineering, 2022, 8: 133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41378-022-00464-1
[20] Golabchi A, Woeppel K M, Li X, Lagenaur C F, Cui X T. Neuroadhesive protein coating improves the chronic performance of neuroelectronics in the mouse brain. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 2020, 155: 112096. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2020.112096
[21] Spencer K C, Sy J C, Ramadi K, et al. Characterization of mechanically matched hydrogel coatings to improve the biocompatibility of neural implants. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7: 1952. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02107-2
[22] Lv S, Xu Z, Mo F, et al. Long-term stability strategies of deep-brain flexible neural interface. NPJ Flexible Electronics, 2025, 9: 40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41528-025-00410-x
[23] Yang G, Tian G, Chen J, Liu Y, Fatima E, Qiu J, et al. Neural electrodes for a brain-computer interface system. Biomedical Materials and Engineering, 2025, e12130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bmm2.12130
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Highlights in Science, Engineering and Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
