BCI Briefing Dossier Nº 02Oct 20269 min read
What Does “Minimally Invasive” Actually Mean?
The phrase is applied to catheters in blood vessels, films slid under the skull and stimulators seated in bone. They are different procedures with different risks and different signals.
Key findings
- 1At least four distinct surgical routes are described as minimally invasive.
- 2Each exchanges some signal resolution or coverage for easier access.
- 3The endovascular route has the most complete published human safety data.
- 4A term that covers this much is not a category. Ask what is opened, what is touched and what stays in.
01
One phrase, several procedures
No regulator defines 'minimally invasive' for brain interfaces. Companies use it to mean that their device avoids something a competitor's does not: opening the skull widely, opening the dura, or penetrating the brain.
A more useful way to compare approaches is by three questions. What is opened? What does the device touch? And what remains in the body?
Approach
Slit-delivered surface array
Layer 7 Cortical Interface
- Opened
- Skull slit and dura
- Touches
- Cortical surface
- Stays in
- Thin film; cleared for up to 30 days
02
Through the blood vessels
An endovascular array is delivered by catheter through the jugular vein and expands inside the superior sagittal sinus, beside motor cortex. Nothing is opened in the skull. The procedure draws on techniques that neurointerventional teams already use.
The published record is the strongest of any commercial implant on safety: a first-in-human study followed participants for twelve months. The cost is resolution. The device records through the vessel wall with sixteen electrodes and must go where the veins go.
03
Under the skull, on the surface
Thin-film arrays can be slid onto the cortical surface through a slit less than a millimetre wide. The dura is opened, the brain is not penetrated, and the film can be removed.
The channel count is high — 1,024 electrodes per array — and several arrays can be tiled. Human evidence so far is from short intraoperative use and a clearance for up to thirty days. Chronic performance is the open question.
04
Above the dura
Epidural devices sit in or under the skull without opening the membrane around the brain. Wireless epidural recorders have driven an exoskeleton and formed the cortical half of a brain–spine interface. A newer class of miniature stimulators is seated in the skull for psychiatric indications.
Signals are coarser than on the cortical surface, but the infection barrier stays intact.
Ask what is opened, what is touched and what stays in.
05
The trade
Every step away from the neuron costs resolution. Every step toward it costs surgical complexity. The interesting question is not which approach is least invasive but which delivers enough function for a given need at an acceptable risk.
For a person who needs a reliable click, sixteen electrodes may be sufficient. For open-vocabulary speech, the evidence so far comes from denser interfaces.
This dossier analyses
- Technology
- EndovascularECoG
- Papers cited
- Assessment of Safety of a Fully Implanted Endovascular Brain-Computer Interface for Severe Paralysis in 4 Patients: The SWITCH StudyMotor neuroprosthesis implanted with neurointerventional surgery improves capacity for activities of daily living tasks in severe paralysis: first in-human experienceMinimally invasive implantation of scalable high-density cortical microelectrode arrays for multimodal neural decoding and stimulationAn exoskeleton controlled by an epidural wireless brain–machine interface in a tetraplegic patient: a proof-of-concept demonstrationWalking naturally after spinal cord injury using a brain–spine interface
- Studies cited
- RESONATE
Sources and method
- 01
BCI Briefing analysis
BCI Briefing analysisThe BCI Briefing3 Oct 2026Editorial / illustrative
Editorial interpretation. Qualitative positions are editorial judgements, not measurements.
- 02
Mitchell P et al. JAMA Neurol 2023;80(3):270–278 (opens in a new tab)
Peer reviewedJAMA Neurology9 Jan 2023Checked against source 3 Oct 2026
DOI 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.4847
- 03
Oxley TJ et al. J Neurointerv Surg 2021;13(2):102–108 (opens in a new tab)
Peer reviewedJournal of NeuroInterventional Surgery28 Oct 2020Checked against source 3 Oct 2026
DOI 10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016862
- 04
Hettick M et al. Nat Biomed Eng 2026;10(6):1206–1221 (opens in a new tab)
Peer reviewedNature Biomedical Engineering2 Oct 2025Checked against source 3 Oct 2026
DOI 10.1038/s41551-025-01501-w
- 05
Benabid AL et al. Lancet Neurol 2019;18(12):1112–1122 (opens in a new tab)
Peer reviewedThe Lancet Neurology3 Oct 2019Checked against source 3 Oct 2026
DOI 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30321-7
- 06
Lorach H et al. Nature 2023;618(7963):126–133 (opens in a new tab)
Peer reviewedNature24 May 2023Checked against source 3 Oct 2026
DOI 10.1038/s41586-023-06094-5
- 07
Precision Neuroscience raises $250M for brain-computer interface work (opens in a new tab)
Independent reportingMedTech Dive25 Sep 2026Checked against source 3 Oct 2026
- 08
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT07594483 (opens in a new tab)
Clinical registryClinicalTrials.gov29 Sep 2026Checked against source 3 Oct 2026
Registry record last updated 2026-09-29.