Section 150 of 440
FAMILY 27: ROBOTICS, BCI & SHARED AUTONOMY
Superdomain: Technology & Augmentation. This family contains eight stable Power records.
PWR-209 · Brain–computer communication
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Implanted BCI communication can be functionally valuable for selected people, but performance belongs to the complete regulated person-device-decoder-support system.
Definition. Capability to develop or express brain–computer communication in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Implanted BCI communication can be functionally valuable for selected people, but performance belongs to the complete regulated person-device-decoder-support system.
Measurement boundary. Person-confirmed message accuracy, rate, correction, calibration/support time, home uptime, privacy and safe fallback versus best alternative access. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. A brain implant reads thoughts perfectly
Metric. Person-confirmed message accuracy, rate, correction, calibration/support time, home uptime, privacy and safe fallback versus best alternative access
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
Earlier evidence was single-participant laboratory proof, and even long-term home use still required implantation, care-partner setup and adaptive software.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
A brain implant reads thoughts perfectly
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [5] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [6] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [12] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [13] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [14] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-210 · Brain-controlled prostheses
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Neural interfaces can control selected prosthetic movements; they do not create a natural, invulnerable or unaided limb.
Definition. Capability to develop or express brain-controlled prostheses in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Neural interfaces can control selected prosthetic movements; they do not create a natural, invulnerable or unaided limb.
Measurement boundary. Task success, movement error/time, unintended activation, daily wear/use, adverse events, maintenance and fallback versus best alternative control. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. The mind can control a perfect bionic limb
Metric. Task success, movement error/time, unintended activation, daily wear/use, adverse events, maintenance and fallback versus best alternative control
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
Robotic-arm control was slower and less accurate than able-bodied use, and long-term implanted prosthesis evidence included serious infection.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
The mind can control a perfect bionic limb
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [4] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [7] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [12] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [13] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [14] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-211 · Neural sensory feedback
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Neural feedback can add useful artificial sensation to a prosthesis for selected users; it is not restoration of normal touch.
Definition. Capability to develop or express neural sensory feedback in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Neural feedback can add useful artificial sensation to a prosthesis for selected users; it is not restoration of normal touch.
Measurement boundary. Force error, object identification, visual-attention burden, sensation stability, adverse events and unfamiliar-task performance device-on/off. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. Electronic nerves restore perfect natural touch
Metric. Force error, object identification, visual-attention burden, sensation stability, adverse events and unfamiliar-task performance device-on/off
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
Evidence is dominated by single/few participants and implanted-device configurations, with no device-off sensory restoration.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Electronic nerves restore perfect natural touch
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [7] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [8] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [12] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [13] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [14] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-212 · Robotic strength augmentation
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Robotic supports can reduce selected physical demands while worn; they do not make the user biologically stronger.
Definition. Capability to develop or express robotic strength augmentation in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Robotic supports can reduce selected physical demands while worn; they do not make the user biologically stronger.
Measurement boundary. Supported task output, whole-body loading, discomfort, heat, balance, errors, discontinuation and device-off strength. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. An exoskeleton gives permanent super-strength
Metric. Supported task output, whole-body loading, discomfort, heat, balance, errors, discontinuation and device-off strength
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
Three of twenty workers discontinued in the field trial, and reduced back activity does not prove lower injury risk or total-body benefit.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
An exoskeleton gives permanent super-strength
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [2] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [12] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-213 · Fine-motor teleoperation
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Fine teleoperation is a trainable person-interface-robot task; assistance and autonomy must be declared.
Definition. Capability to develop or express fine-motor teleoperation in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Fine teleoperation is a trainable person-interface-robot task; assistance and autonomy must be declared.
Measurement boundary. Accuracy, force error, time, collisions, workload, latency/failure recovery and unaided/assisted conditions versus direct control. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. A robot instantly gives flawless surgical hands
Metric. Accuracy, force error, time, collisions, workload, latency/failure recovery and unaided/assisted conditions versus direct control
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
Small controlled studies do not establish patient benefit, daily-life independence or safe performance when guidance or network links fail.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
A robot instantly gives flawless surgical hands
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [1] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [9] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [12] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-214 · Shared autonomy
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Shared autonomy can improve selected tasks, but value depends on how control, intent, override and failure are configured.
Definition. Capability to develop or express shared autonomy in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Shared autonomy can improve selected tasks, but value depends on how control, intent, override and failure are configured.
Measurement boundary. Task success, intent errors, override latency, workload, collisions and failure recovery versus manual, autonomous and shared control. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. The robot always knows what the user wants
Metric. Task success, intent errors, override latency, workload, collisions and failure recovery versus manual, autonomous and shared control
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
Studies were small or used nondisabled participants; intent inference, slower travel and failure-state agency remain unresolved.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
The robot always knows what the user wants
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [1] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [3] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [9] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [10] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [12] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-215 · Autonomous mobility assistance
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Autonomous mobility assistance is an emerging configured capability; current evidence is controlled and does not establish independent public travel.
Definition. Capability to develop or express autonomous mobility assistance in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Autonomous mobility assistance is an emerging configured capability; current evidence is controlled and does not establish independent public travel.
Measurement boundary. Severity-weighted collisions, interventions, route completion/time, workload, false stops, safe-state success and intended-user agency. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. A smart wheelchair can safely drive anyone anywhere
Metric. Severity-weighted collisions, interventions, route completion/time, workload, false stops, safe-state success and intended-user agency
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
The strongest studies used six trained or blindfolded nondisabled participants, and assisted navigation could be slower despite fewer collisions.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
A smart wheelchair can safely drive anyone anywhere
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [3] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [10] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [12] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-216 · Biohybrid human–machine control
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Biohybrid human-machine control exists in small restorative clinical systems; it is not a consumer neural-enhancement route.
Definition. Capability to develop or express biohybrid human–machine control in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Biohybrid human-machine control exists in small restorative clinical systems; it is not a consumer neural-enhancement route.
Measurement boundary. User-chosen function, decoder and interface stability, adverse events, reversibility, repair burden, authorship and device-on/off outcomes. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. Humans can safely merge with machines for limitless enhancement
Metric. User-chosen function, decoder and interface stability, adverse events, reversibility, repair burden, authorship and device-on/off outcomes
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
Evidence is tiny, clinically selected and device-on; one corrected series included sepsis and infection, and no broad enhancement or device-off transfer exists.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Humans can safely merge with machines for limitless enhancement
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [4] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [6] limiting or contrary evidence; [7] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [8] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [12] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [13] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [14] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
Family source register
Numbers in each dossier refer to this family register. A source can support one bounded proposition while simultaneously limiting transfer, certainty, generalisation or safety.
[1] Linfei Xiong; Chin Boon Chng; Chee Kong Chui; Peiwu Yu; Yao Li (2017). Shared control of a medical robot with haptic guidance. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27314590/
[2] L. Schrøder Jakobsen; A. Samani; K. Desbrosses; M. de Zee; B. Steinhilber; P. Madeleine (2025). Effects of 24-weeks in-field use of a back-supporting exoskeleton on biomechanics, work intensity and musculoskeletal discomfort. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39904204
[3] Baoguo Xu; Deping Liu; Muhui Xue; Minmin Miao; Cong Hu; Aiguo Song (2023). Continuous shared control of a mobile robot with brain–computer interface and autonomous navigation for daily assistance. Primary research. https://spj.science.org/doi/10.1016/j.csbj.2023.07.033
[4] Leigh R. Hochberg; Daniel Bacher; Beata Jarosiewicz; Nicolas Y. Masse; John D. Simeral; Joern Vogel; Sami Haddadin; Jie Liu; Sydney S. Cash; Patrick van der Smagt; John P. Donoghue (2012). Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Primary research. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11076
[5] Francis R. Willett; Erin M. Kunz; Chaofei Fan; Donald T. Avansino; Guy H. Wilson; Eun Young Choi; Foram Kamdar; Matthew F. Glasser; Leigh R. Hochberg; Shaul Druckmann; Krishna V. Shenoy; Jaimie M. Henderson (2023). A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis. Primary research. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06377-x
[6] Nicholas S. Card; Tyler Singer-Clark; Hamza Peracha; Carrina Iacobacci; Xianda Hou; Maitreyee Wairagkar; Zachery Fogg; Elena C. Offenberg; Leigh R. Hochberg; Sergey D. Stavisky; David M. Brandman (2026). Long-term independent use of an intracortical brain–computer interface for speech and cursor control. Primary research. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-026-04414-6
[7] Max Ortiz-Catalan; Enzo Mastinu; Paolo Sassu; Oskar Aszmann; Rickard Brånemark (2020). Self-Contained Neuromusculoskeletal Arm Prostheses. Primary research. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1917537
[8] Francesco Clemente; Giacomo Valle; Marco Controzzi; Ivo Strauss; Francesco Iberite; Thomas Stieglitz; Giuseppe Granata; Paolo M. Rossini; Francesco M. Petrini; Silvestro Micera; Christian Cipriani (2019). Intraneural sensory feedback restores grip force control and motor coordination while using a prosthetic hand. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30736030
[9] Siddarth Jain; Ali Farshchiansadegh; Alexander Broad; Farnaz Abdollahi; Ferdinando Mussa-Ivaldi; Brenna D. Argall (2015). Assistive Robotic Manipulation through Shared Autonomy and a Body-Machine Interface. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26855690
[10] Vinod Sharma; Richard C. Simpson; Edmund LoPresti; Mark Schmeler (2010). Evaluation of semiautonomous navigation assistance system for power wheelchairs with blindfolded nondisabled individuals. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21174252/
[11] National Institute of Standards and Technology (2020). NIST Privacy Framework: A Tool for Improving Privacy Through Enterprise Risk Management, Version 1.0. Official authority. https://www.nist.gov/publications/nist-privacy-framework-tool-improving-privacy-through-enterprise-risk-management
[12] United States Food and Drug Administration (2026). Cybersecurity in Medical Devices: Quality Management System Considerations and Content of Premarket Submissions. Official authority. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/cybersecurity-medical-devices-quality-management-system-considerations-and-content-premarket
[13] United States Food and Drug Administration (2021). Implanted Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) Devices for Patients with Paralysis or Amputation — Non-clinical Testing and Clinical Considerations. Official authority. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/implanted-brain-computer-interface-bci-devices-patients-paralysis-or-amputation-non-clinical-testing
[14] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2025). Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology. Official authority. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-ethics-neurotechnology