An implanted interface restored communication for nearly seven years

Utrecht NeuroProsthesis, using Activa PC+S and Communicator 5. [1]

A decoder based on normalized brain-signal power and fitted thresholds. No machine-learning model is identified. [1]

The papers do not report a decoder release. Activa PC+S and Communicator 5 identify hardware and application software. [1]

UMC Utrecht developed the interface. Medtronic supplied the implant, and Tobii Dynavox supplied the communication software. [1]

The implant recorded brain activity. A decoder converted attempted movements into clicks for spelling and calling a caregiver. [1]

The decoder combined low- and high-frequency brain activity and applied individually fitted click rules. The tablet ran Communicator 5. [1] [2] [3]

Electrical activity from the motor cortex became click commands in a scanning communication interface. [1]

The participant chose when to generate a click. The software scanned letters and converted her selections into text or a caregiver call. [1]

A caregiver positioned the antenna and connected the tablet. The participant then selected letters or called for attention by attempting hand movements. [1]

Clinicians implanted and monitored the device. Researchers adjusted decoding settings, and caregivers helped set up and maintain the home equipment. [1]

Whether this interface uses AI remains unresolved. The documented decoder combines signal features and individually fitted thresholds. [1] [2] [3]

Fitted signal-processing rules converted attempted hand movements into selections. The evidence supports this decoding contribution without identifying a learned AI model. [1]

AIBD-0265-outcome-01 [1]

The participant could communicate and call a caregiver at home after training. [1]

Improved Accessibility

Observed in one participant over several years. [1]

People.

One woman with advanced ALS who was 58 when she entered the study. [1]

One participant, followed repeatedly. The two papers do not describe two separate beneficiaries. [1] [2]

This was one participant with suitable motor signals and caregiver support. The study does not establish the same result for all people with locked-in ALS. [1]

Independent home use lasted nearly seven years and ended in March 2023. [1]

Yes

The participant underwent two operations and extensive training. The follow-up supplement records a procedure-related fever with hospital readmission. Later loss of reliable control ended home use. [1]

NCT02224469 [1]

A prospective single-participant study, followed by a longitudinal report on the same woman. [1]

Researchers tested clicks and spelling, collected satisfaction ratings, logged when the home system was available, and monitored brain signals and imaging. [1]

One participant at UMC Utrecht and in her home. Repeated task runs are observations from that same person. [1]

Selection accuracy, spelling speed, time with the system available at home, satisfaction, and persistence of usable control. [1]

There was no control group. The participant also used an eye tracker until eye movement became unreliable. [1]

Initial spelling accuracy averaged 89%. With word prediction, she selected about two letters per minute. Home use continued for nearly seven years. [1] [2]

The study demonstrates the whole implanted interface. It does not isolate a machine-learning contribution, and its decoder is described through signal processing and fitted thresholds. [1]

The result concerns one person. Home logs show availability, not continuous active communication. Declining control coincided with ALS progression, without proving a single cause. [1]

The initial report describes 67 two-hour research sessions over 262 days. Home use without investigators began on day 197 after implantation. [1]

The original paper links two example task runs in Dryad. The follow-up supplement describes signal analysis. The thesis documents click thresholds and reproduces the follow-up supplement. [1]

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

Medtronic provided the implant, antenna, and receiver to UMC Utrecht free of charge. Their market value and the full costs of care were not reported. [1]

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

UMC Utrecht researchers developed and evaluated the interface. Medtronic supplied the implant, and the participant and her caregivers used the home system. [1]

Implantation, follow-up, and home use took place in the Netherlands. [1]

The reviewed clinical sources identify the organizations involved, but do not establish their complete ownership or control arrangements. [1]

The system required implanted electrodes, a chest transmitter, an external antenna and receiver, a tablet, communication software, and continuing caregiver support. [1]

The reviewed sources do not document international transfers of patient data or quantify cross-border financial flows. [1]

Not assessed

Preserved motor signals, adequate cognition, caregiver support, individual training, and access to replacement equipment were necessary. [1]

The 2024 report follows the same woman, rather than a second user of this device. [2]

The system became her only communication technology after eye tracking ended in 2019. Night use stopped in October 2022, and all home use ended in March 2023. [2]

The interface was investigational and used implant components off label. Replacement-device availability became a concern during follow-up. [1]

UMC Utrecht tested an implanted means of communication for people with severe paralysis. [1] [2]

The study received ethics approval and informed consent. Implant components were used off label. [1] [2]

Clinicians implanted the system and researchers supported its use and adaptation at home. [1] [2]

Researchers evaluated communication control, usability, and long-term stability. The case report did not define a single financial or clinical pass threshold. [1] [2]

3 retained sources.

Original citations and the passages that support each finding. [1] [2] [3]

English. No translation was used. [1]

The investigators developed the interface. Medtronic supplied components and had a coauthor on the original report. The follow-up and thesis concern the same participant. [1] [2] [3]

The original studies and their supporting materials are linked to the findings that they support. [1] [2] [3]

Access and version details are listed for each reviewed source. [1] [2] [3]

The implant restored communication at home for nearly seven years, although the evidence does not establish a learned AI component. [1]

The original paper establishes communication, the follow-up establishes its duration, and the thesis supplies decoder and safety details. [1] [2] [3]

Two peer-reviewed reports by the same developers followed one participant. The thesis supplies technical details, not independent replication. [1]

The sources do not establish a learned AI model or exact software release. Private messages and active home-use accuracy were deliberately excluded from logs. [1]

The benefit described here, for the beneficiary groups shown.

Depth 3 for restored communication that lasted nearly seven years.

Depth 3 for restored communication that lasted nearly seven years.

The depth describes the reported result. Evidence strength is assessed separately.

AIBD’s five-level depth rubric, reviewed on 25 October 2026.

AIBD, 25 October 2026.

Depth 4 would require a separately established serious harm averted. The technical AI boundary remains distinct from the depth of the documented benefit.

Peer-reviewed reports by the developers about one participant. The outline is retained.

A single-participant clinical study with long-term follow-up. [1]

AIBD-0052 cites this interface as a historical comparison. The two systems were not tested head to head.

Health; assistive communication. People with locked-in syndrome from ALS.

Provide autonomous communication for a person with late-stage ALS who could no longer rely on eye tracking

Implantation began on 27 October 2015. Home use ended in March 2023. The follow-up report appeared on 14 August 2024. [1] [2]

An investigational implant used at home after months of training. [1]

SHA-256: 6e096fc354b9…

NCT02224469 [1]

Not assessed

Not assessed

5 revisions. Latest: 25 October 2026.