Talk:Neuro cybernetics

TODO

• Gather more links for this topic. --Slicky 17:39, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Current research & breakthroughs --Slicky 17:39, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Add a forwarding page for 'Bio cybernetics'/'Biocybernetics' to Neuro Cybernetics --Slicky 17:39, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Make the topic more comprehensive by including latest research themes and basic knowledge --Slicky 17:39, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Messages

• Someone with a strong familiarity of wikipedia its style and its coherence may please shape this article up in order to make it match to wikipedia in style (that is hopefully a strong technical language and the omittance of uncertain or superfluous information) --Slicky 17:39, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

• I do not think that this strictly speaking belongs under computational neuroscience, as has been suggested. My impression is that computational neuroscience involves computational methods, theory and principles to model and understand the brain. Whereas neuro-cybernetics is more about the interface between the brain and control mechanisms (which may or may not even involve computers!) --66.57.249.182 16:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BCI

As 66.57.249.182 said, Computational neuroscience is more of a general descriptor of a branch of science that uses computational and mathematical methods for examine the processes of the brain, whereas neurocybernetics is more specifically about designing interfaces. I believe neurocybernetics should be combined with Brain-computer interface instead.

Semiconscious 07:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or split it up and put each piece where it belongs. - Omegatron 23:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, BCI's in it current states make use of completely different technology. Esentially if matured entirely neuro cybernetics would be the discipline handling the technology for a fully capable interface, however will hardly attempt to be a BCI, but rather a brainstem CI so with mere interest of the cortical controllable regions.Slicky 17:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally

computational neuroscience is ultimately one of the fields that will have to be matured and progressed far enough to further advances in terms of applications of neuro cybernetics but is essentially something completely different than neuro cybernetics. They all clearly are subject to neurology though and as such could be seen as subgroups or branches of this discipline!

Also it is usually referred to as neuro cybernetics or bio cybernetics ( i dunno if there really is a difference; at first guess i would say the first is more microscopic and not necessarily restricted to living / macroscopic organisms, neither would be the latter but it implies a certain tedency towards the application in higher organisms). When doing research search always for both as both are essentially underlying the same fundamentals.Slicky 17:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge With Neural Engineering

I agree with the assessment that this article should be merged somehow with neural engineering. My impression is that neuro cybernetics is more of a historical term which is becoming superceded by neural engineering (or is it neuroengineering? nobody seems to agree on the exact term!) And to be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that "neuro cybernetics" was ever in wide usage at all. Does anybody have references that show that it is actually in use? --Joeyo 01:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to have any qualms about the moral and ethical implications of such research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.170.217 (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note the main discussion wrt this merge proposal is happening on Talk:Neural engineering

Name?

Why is it "neuro cybernetics" and not "neurocybernetics"? It doesn't make sense when compared with other terms created by adding prefixes (e.g. biocybernetics, neurobiology or neuropharmacology). 194.88.158.170 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)