Section 151 of 440
FAMILY 28: SYNTHETIC SENSES, DIGITAL TWINS & EXTENDED COGNITION
Superdomain: Technology & Augmentation. This family contains eight stable Power records.
PWR-217 · Non-human environmental sensing
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. A wearable can translate magnetic north or another hidden signal into touch. The learned capability belongs to the person–device system—not a newly grown biological sense.
Definition. Capability to develop or express non-human environmental sensing in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. People can learn to use a wearable sensor that converts otherwise unavailable environmental information into a tactile cue; the demonstrated ability remains device- and task-specific.
Measurement boundary. Measure sensor/mapping version, signal-detection accuracy, orientation error, workload, interference, device-on/off performance, delayed retention, real-route function and failures; neural change is not biological sense acquisition.
Myth. Grow a sixth sense
Metric. Versioned device-on orientation accuracy, error, workload and real-route function
Boundary. Learning a sensor mapping does not establish a new biological receptor or safe independent navigation.
Negative and limiting findings.
- No durable device-off sensory capability or safety-critical independent-navigation transfer has been established; group/exposure confounding remains.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Grow a magnetic sense
Biological magnetoreception
Navigate safely without ordinary aids
Install a sixth sense in anyone
Evidence references. [7] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [9] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] 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; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority.
PWR-218 · Spatial-audio 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. Spatial audio can turn a 3D scan into navigation cues. Early testing was only in six blindfolded sighted adults, so real value for blind and low-vision users remains an open, user-led question.
Definition. Capability to develop or express spatial-audio augmentation in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. A prototype can sonify a reconstructed environment and reduced obstacle contacts in six blindfolded sighted adults, but value for blind/low-vision users, dependable mobility and durable learning remain unestablished.
Measurement boundary. Predeclare user vision/hearing, route, obstacles, moving hazards, sensor field, mapping and latency; measure collisions/near misses, path error, time, workload, audio masking, device failure, aid use and user-valued function.
Myth. See the world through sonar
Metric. Route completion, obstacle/near-miss rate, localization error, workload and fallback use in intended users
Boundary. A sighted-blindfolded prototype study cannot establish sight, safe street mobility or replacement of established aids.
Negative and limiting findings.
- The feasibility study tested no blind/low-vision user; participants were slower when assisted, and no evidence establishes street navigation, superiority to established aids, audio-masking tolerance or safe device failure.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Sonar vision
Replace a cane or guide dog
See with sound automatically
Safe navigation through any environment
Evidence references. [8] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] 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-219 · Haptic data perception
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. Vibration patterns can carry real information and people can learn a code. That does not create universal “skin reading”: the device, mapping and body site remain part of the ability.
Definition. Capability to develop or express haptic data perception in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. People can learn particular wearable tactile codes, including direction and phoneme patterns, but retention and generalization beyond the trained device and mapping remain open.
Measurement boundary. Declare actuator layout, waveform, body site, mapping, feedback and alternative channel; measure discrimination, confusion matrix, free response, delayed device/code transfer, workload, skin effects and meaningful use.
Myth. Read data through your skin
Metric. Device/code-specific recognition accuracy, confusion, retention, transfer and meaningful use
Boundary. A learned vibration vocabulary is not a universal new sense or complete language.
Negative and limiting findings.
- No broad cross-device/code transfer, long delayed retention, daily communication benefit or universal skin/sensory tolerance has been shown.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Read any data through skin
Learn a new language through vibration
Universal haptic sense
No visual or auditory support needed
Evidence references. [4] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [9] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] 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: cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority.
PWR-220 · Augmented-reality visual guidance
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. AR can guide a task in the moment. Titan separates that device-on boost from whether a person actually learned the skill and can work safely when the display disappears.
Definition. Capability to develop or express augmented-reality visual guidance in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. AR guidance can improve selected immediate task measures in simulation, but it has not been shown to create retained unaided competence or better patient outcomes.
Measurement boundary. Separate guidance-on performance from learning; measure registration/latency, errors, assistance, workload, delayed display-off performance, novel-case transfer, adverse events and meaningful outcome.
Myth. Download expert vision
Metric. Errors, completion, workload and delayed display-off performance in a named task
Boundary. Guided simulation speed cannot establish clinical competence, patient benefit or safe operation after display loss.
Negative and limiting findings.
- No delayed display-off retention, patient benefit, broad transfer or safe display-failure performance has been established.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Download expert vision
AR makes novices competent
See through the body
Safe procedure after one guided session
Evidence references. [6] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] 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-221 · Physiological digital twin
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. A digital twin is not a second you. It is a limited, versioned model of selected variables, useful only for the question and population in which it has been validated.
Definition. Capability to develop or express physiological digital twin in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. A physiological digital twin is a context-specific computational model that may approximate selected patient responses; it is not a trainable human power or a complete digital copy of a person.
Measurement boundary. Predeclare clinical question, inputs, missingness, model/version, comparator, calibration/discrimination/error, subgroup performance, uncertainty, update policy and outcome; no wearable or model score alone diagnoses a person.
Myth. Build a perfect digital copy of your body
Metric. Context-specific prediction error, calibration, uncertainty, subgroup validity and clinical utility
Boundary. A limited physiological model cannot reproduce a whole person or authorize diagnosis and treatment.
Negative and limiting findings.
- The sepsis model showed variable agreement and common coding, expert-rule and timing errors; patient benefit and cross-setting transport were not established.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Your exact digital clone
Predict your body perfectly
Replace a clinician
Simulate any treatment safely
Evidence references. [3] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [10] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [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; [15] 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-222 · Cognitive offloading
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. Reminders really can help—and they can change what you learn unaided. Titan treats the person plus tool as a legitimate capability while making removal and failure visible.
Definition. Capability to develop or express cognitive offloading in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. External reminders can improve performance while available, but offloading can reduce learning of the offloaded material; Titan measures both the configured benefit and the consequences of tool removal.
Measurement boundary. Declare goal as device-on function, learning, or both; measure setup/acknowledgement, omissions/false alerts, delayed device-on/off performance, generalization, burden, privacy and real consequence.
Myth. Outsource memory with no cost
Metric. Device-on task completion plus delayed device-off memory, errors, burden and fallback
Boundary. A reminder can improve function without teaching the remembered content.
Negative and limiting findings.
- In controlled experiments, later memory for offloaded intentions fell below a no-offloading baseline; in multiple sclerosis, diary forgetting improved while a broader questionnaire did not.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Free your brain with no downside
Outsource memory permanently
Tools make memory weaker
Real capability must be unaided
Evidence references. [1] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [2] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [5] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] 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; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority.
PWR-223 · External memory systems
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. An external memory system can be a genuine part of someone’s capability. The right question is whether the whole person–tool–support system works reliably and safely.
Definition. Capability to develop or express external memory systems in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Personalized external memory systems can improve selected everyday tasks for people with memory difficulties, provided the aid and support remain part of the declared capability.
Measurement boundary. Measure personally meaningful task completion, false/missed cues, setup burden, delayed device-on continuity, device-off consequence where relevant, support hours, privacy, outages and quality of life.
Myth. Never forget again
Metric. Chosen daily-task completion, cue reliability, support burden, outages and user-valued function
Boundary. A reminder system neither restores all memory nor removes the need for people and fallback.
Negative and limiting findings.
- A broader everyday-memory questionnaire was unchanged in one active-controlled trial, and later unaided memory can be poorer for content previously offloaded.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Restore memory completely
Replace carers or clinicians
Never forget again
Dependence on a tool is failure
Evidence references. [1] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [2] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [5] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [11] 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; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority.
PWR-224 · Predictive capability modelling
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. Models can predict narrow outcomes. They cannot reveal a person’s destiny. Every forecast belongs to a version, population, task, time horizon and governance system.
Definition. Capability to develop or express predictive capability modelling in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. A model can forecast a narrowly defined outcome in the context where it was validated; Titan does not support a universal score of a person’s potential or future capability.
Measurement boundary. Predeclare outcome, horizon, target population, missingness, comparator and consequence; report calibration, discrimination, uncertainty, subgroup errors, drift, human override and decision benefit/harm.
Myth. AI can predict your human potential
Metric. Out-of-sample calibration, error, subgroup performance, drift and decision consequence for one named outcome
Boundary. A context-specific forecast cannot measure worth, destiny or total capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
- The prospective digital-twin study showed variable agreement and common implementation errors; no cross-context universal capability prediction or improved decision outcome was established.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Predict anyone’s potential
Know what you will become
Objective life score
AI decides who is capable
Evidence references. [3] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [10] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [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; [15] 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] C Fellers; B C Storm (2026). Offloading reduces prospective memory learning. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42241083/
[2] R A Goodwin; N B Lincoln; R das Nair; A Bateman (2020). Evaluation of NeuroPage as a memory aid for people with multiple sclerosis: A randomised controlled trial. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29557731/
[3] A Lal; G Li; E Cubro; S Chalmers; H Li; V Herasevich; Y Dong; B W Pickering; O Kilickaya; O Gajic (2020). Development and Verification of a Digital Twin Patient Model to Predict Specific Treatment Response During the First 24 Hours of Sepsis. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33225302/
[4] N Dunkelberger; J L Sullivan; J Bradley; I Manickam; G Dasarathy; R Baraniuk; M K O'Malley (2021). A Multisensory Approach to Present Phonemes as Language Through a Wearable Haptic Device. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32746381/
[5] B A Wilson; H C Emslie; K Quirk; J J Evans (2001). Reducing everyday memory and planning problems by means of a paging system: a randomised control crossover study. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11254770/
[6] S C Liao; S C Shao; S Y Gao; E C Lai (2024). Augmented reality visualization for ultrasound-guided interventions: a pilot randomized crossover trial to assess trainee performance and cognitive load. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39334275/
[7] S U König; F Schumann; J Keyser; C Goeke; C Krause; S Wache; A Lytochkin; M Ebert; V Brunsch; B Wahn; K Kaspar; S K Nagel; T Meilinger; H Bülthoff; T Wolbers; C Büchel; P König (2016). Learning New Sensorimotor Contingencies: Effects of Long-Term Use of Sensory Augmentation on the Brain and Conscious Perception. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27959914/
[8] B S Schwartz; S King; T Bell (2024). EchoSee: An Assistive Mobile Application for Real-Time 3D Environment Reconstruction and Sonification Supporting Enhanced Navigation for People with Vision Impairments. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39199789/
[9] Vincent Schmidt; Sabine U König; Rabia Dilawar; Tracy Sánchez Pacheco; Peter König (2023). Improved Spatial Knowledge Acquisition through Sensory Augmentation. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37239192/
[10] Elham Tabassi; National Institute of Standards and Technology (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). Official authority. https://www.nist.gov/publications/artificial-intelligence-risk-management-framework-ai-rmf-10
[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] U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories (2023). Credibility of Computational Models Program: Research on Computational Models and Simulation Associated with Medical Devices. Official authority. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-regulatory-science-research-programs-conducted-osel/credibility-computational-models-program-research-computational-models-and-simulation-associated
[13] U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). Clinical Decision Support Software. Official authority. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/clinical-decision-support-software
[14] 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
[15] U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2025). Marketing Submission Recommendations for a Predetermined Change Control Plan for Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Device Software Functions. Official authority. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/marketing-submission-recommendations-predetermined-change-control-plan-artificial-intelligence