Talk:Neural engineering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Neuroscience This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

[edit] Merge proposal: Neuro cybernetics into Neural engineering

"Neuro cybernetics" is simply the European name for "Neural engineering." I propose we merge the two and ensure that the lead sentence mentions both the European and American names. I would put a redirect too on "Neuro cybernetics" and "Neurocybernetics" pointing towards "Neural engineering". Any objections? --Ben Houston 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It's by far not a a question of European and American names... It is a question of hardware and software. "Neuro cybernetics" is more oriented towards the software, algorithimic and information processing side of the problem "neural interface" - "how to describe and model".
"Neural engineering" is clearly an engineering discipline. It deals with the technological implications - the "how to make". So I think they should be kept as two separate streams. uli hofmann, hofmann@isip.uni-luebeck.de

I created this article a while back ago, but foremost with the propensity to build up and gather information regarding bio cybernetics. - i merged those some months ago. My intend, reading this discussion now would be to rename it to biological cybernetics. Of course it isn't the same as, i hope we can agree, the breadth of the discipline bio and neuro is substaintially different. 'bio' nowadays is so vast that one can even sell it as a trademark or buy it at a european supermarket,...in a mocking sense what i am getting at is neurology sure is gigantic but still a subset of biology. In the end there's enough research available to warrant those fields dozens of pages, but i don't have the inclination to engage in a wikipedia-writing-binge. Thus for now logic would command to have a page for bio-cyb. with some category of neuro-cyb in it. In fact those interested in how drastically things are going ahead should check out the blue gene and other related projects. Slicky 18:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your response Dr Hofmann. Well, I can say this to defend my original idea of combining the two: As far as I know there are no Neurocybernetic departments in North America -- this suggests to me that there is some naming issue at state here that needs to be resolved in some fashion. I now think there are two main choices (if we are to make a merge), either neuro cybernetics is another name for neural engineering or another name for computational neuroscience.

Also i am kinda bewildered and stunned at the same time: 'bewildstunned' Does no-one care to check up upon the definitions anymore. I mean no one of you were to mix apples and pears. So if one were to check up on the definitions on neuro; cybernetics; neural; engineering; computational; science one can easily deduce the meaning. I know it's gotten fuzzy over the time, but if each and everyone contributes more and more fuzziness we can skip terminiology and start describing science in everyday-language as warm, bright, kaboo, or..... u get the meaning. Scientific disciplines use terminology for their own name. And we invented terminology for the singular purpose to not end up with some fuzzy lingustics no-one except the author can interprete right, and even that possibility, declining over time. We devised that even one step further further with abstract languages. That's all i can say to that subject. Slicky 18:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Many of the books that I've read on "Neural engineering" discuss the theoretical modelling aspects as well. For example, the book "Neural Engineering" [1], describes itself this way "In Neural Engineering, Chris Eliasmith and Charles Anderson provide a synthesis of the disparate approaches current in computational neuroscience, incorporating ideas from neural coding, neural computation, physiology, communications theory, control theory, dynamics, and probability theory. .... The authors present three principles of neural engineering based on the representation of signals by neural ensembles, transformations of these representations through neuronal coupling weights, and the integration of control theory and neural dynamics." (emphasis added by me.) On BmeCentral, Neural Engineering is described this way "Neural engineering is an interdisciplinary field comprised of neuroscience, neurobiology and computer science, encompassing experimental, computational and theoretical aspects of neural tissue regeneration, neural signal processing, neural modeling and computation, neuroelectronics, neuromechanical systems, neuroinformatics, neuroimaging, neural prosthetics and neural circuits (artificial and biological)." (empahsis added by me) [2].
Computational Neuroscience has been around for years now. This field, at least in North America, combines theoretical neuroscience with computer science and cybernetic principles.
Do you think there is a clear mapping of neurocybernetics with either of these two disciplines? If no we need to clearly state its relationship to both disciplines in its introduction and somewhere in the article we need to justify why it doesn't exist as a discipline in North America. --Ben Houston 17:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I should also mention that "neuro-" is a prefix and not an indepedent word (the independent form is "neural".) Thus if we were to keep "neuro cybernetics" I would recommend that it be renamed to either "neural cybernetics" or "neurocybernetics." --Ben Houston 18:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that Dr. Hoffman makes a good point about the distinction between hardware and software aspects, but I think that the current state of the naming issue does require a choice be made. A merger with computational neuroscience seems the best course of action. Bocaj 00:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Even if we all did agree with the hardware and software distinction (which I personally do not), then surely neural engineering should not be merged with a "software" field like computational neuroscience! --Joeyo 01:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I was refering to the specific statement made by Ben Houston "I now think there are two main choices (if we are to make a merge), either neuro cybernetics is another name for neural engineering or another name for computational neuroscience." I am saying that neuro cybernetics is another name for computational neuroscience.--Bocaj 02:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
NO IT IS NOT!!!

I wanted to point out the similarity to computational neuroscience but apparently Bocaj was faster. However the only REASON WHY neuro cybernetics today resembles computational neuroscience is because ultimately any theoretical modelling is nowadays carried out on computers - they are a fixture of our lives in any given aspect. Meanwhile some weeks ago, i did however clean the article up and linked it accordingly in cybernetics and biocybernetics. It is unwise to merge it with comp. neurosc. however as this page will grow rapidly due it's broad range. Ultimately neuro cyb. is a mathematical modelling of 'process pathways' within organism (and come to think of it, dead ones too).Slicky 17:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. That merge sounds much more reasonable to me. --Joeyo 14:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to respectfully disagree with Uli Hoffman-- engineering is about more than just "building things." It can be about , for example, modeling systems with quantitative methods. The reality is that someone who is doing research in this field could be in any of a number of departments at a university: Biology, Neurobiology, Physics, Applied Math, Cybernetics, Mechanical engineering, Electrical Engineering, Biomedical Engineering. It mostly comes down to what the conventions are at your university, country, etc. As it happens, I do not know of anyone claiming to do neurocybernetics within the US-- I've only seen the term used in Japan and Europe. --Joeyo 01:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Some possibly helpful contextual statistics:

  • "neuro cybernetics" - 740 hits via Google
  • "neurocybernetics" - 9,290 hits via Google
  • "neural cybernetics" - 224 hits via Google
  • "computational neuroscience" - 482,000 hits via Google
  • "neural engineering" - 2,350,000 hits via Google

--Ben Houston 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


still u can't just mix them like u wish: abviously neuro cybernetics with or with a blank is the same but computational neur. et al, .....i mean just deduce the meaning of those sub-disciplines by their name, which are too crystal clear to explain them. neuro cybernetics surely will rely on comp. neurosiences as in fact our civilization seems to rely more on more on computational tasks. We based science on logic long before computers were invented and ult. computers have been implemented the basic logic-set to formulate anything else. Slicky 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


(I just noticed that Semiconscious made this statement on the computational neuroscience talk page a while back. --Ben Houston 18:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
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 neuro cybernetics is more specifically about designing interfaces. I believe neurocybernetics should be combined with Brain-computer interface instead. --Semiconscious 19:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not know how Semiconscious' thread developed (after all it is a thread outside our current discussion), but isn't cybernetics part of control theory? So, by far not limited to "interfaces"? I think its not really relevant for this discussion. Ughofmann 14:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, that's what it is. it is control theory applied to biological systems with special regard to neurology, as one could also apply control theory to a unicellular organism obviously lacking neurons. It should not be merged with BCIs as those are a sub section and in fact don't really match for one distinct reason. As of 2006 there is no way of creating a Brain interface in any way other than accounting for large sections of the brain . Moreover we don't even know what is going on in there as far as that from complex structure suddenly consciousness arises. An interface should translate something, however a BCI so far is mostly about assuming something.Slicky 17:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Above discussion seems to converge on the decision NOT to merge neuroengineering to neurocybernetics. I apologize for having taken a seemingly one-sided stand for "engineering = building".... My own research is indeed more oriented to hardware, microtechnologies and signal processing. But I am performing simulations as well. I recommend "Neuroprosthetics - Theory and Practice" [3] over the "Neural Engineering" [4] Ughofmann 14:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I will remove the merge tag, per the above vote and put "other uses" tags instead.--Sadi Carnot 18:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)