The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
So in that example you gave, you're describing a patient with aphasia who can't speak. Let me be very specific about that. So a lot of the work that we've done is on people that have a severe form of paralysis. And aphasia we typically I see refer to as someone who's got let's say a stroke. Yep. um in the language centers of the brain. Um where we've focused recently is on patients that have a severe form paralysis like ALS.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
In many cases of uh BCI research, the application is uh for example to remove a computer cursor or uh in the research that we've done is to replace speech words for someone who's severely paralyzed and unable to talk anymore.
In many cases of uh BCI research, the application is uh for example to remove a computer cursor or uh in the research that we've done is to replace speech words for someone who's severely paralyzed and unable to talk anymore.
In many cases of uh BCI research, the application is uh for example to remove a computer cursor or uh in the research that we've done is to replace speech words for someone who's severely paralyzed and unable to talk anymore.