By Sania Naz
Abstract
The concept of direct brain‑to‑brain communication colloquially “telepathy” is increasingly feasible through advances in neurotechnology. This paper reviews the origins, current status, and future prospects of brain‑to‑brain interfaces (B2BIs), building on the underpinning technologies of brain‑computer interfaces (BCIs) and computer‑brain interfaces (CBIs). After tracing a brief history, we evaluate key experimental paradigms, technical challenges, applications (medical and beyond), and ethical, regulatory and societal issues. We argue that while the biotech of “brain‑to‑brain” remains nascent, it holds transformative promise for rehabilitation, human collaboration, and augmentation but only with rigorous attention to safety, autonomy and equity.
Keywords: brain‑to‑brain interface, neurotechnology, brain‑computer interface, computer‑brain interface, ethics, rehabilitation
- Introduction
Imagine two people sharing thoughts without words, bypassing speech entirely. That vision—long relegated to science fiction—is edging closer to reality. In recent years, neuroengineers have developed interfaces that allow one human brain to transmit information to another, via a chain of brain‑computer and computer‑brain systems. Although this is far from “true telepathy,” the biotech underpinning these attempts is becoming real. This paper provides a structured review of brain‑to‑brain communication technologies, focusing on their evolution, mechanisms, applications and implications. For researchers and biotech writers alike, the promise and the perils warrant close scrutiny.
- Historical background and definitions
The field of brain‑computer interfaces (BCIs) began decades ago with attempts to decode brain signals and use them to control external devices. For example, early work by Vidal in 1973 used electroencephalography (EEG) to detect brain activity for device control. Over time, BCI matured into a branch of neurotechnology aimed at reading from the brain; the complementary computer‑brain interface (CBI) writes into the brain via stimulation. The combination—brain‑computer plus computer‑brain—forms what is now called a brain‑to‑brain interface (B2BI). According to Nam et al., a B2BI consists of a sender brain → BCI → digital system → CBI → receiver brain chain. Early examples included animal studies and human pilot work; for instance, one multi‑person non‑invasive experiment (“BrainNet”) allowed three human participants to solve a Tetris‑like task using EEG for senders and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to the receiver.
- Technical mechanisms
In a typical brain‑to‑brain system the steps are: (1) measure brain activity of sender (via EEG, electrocorticography, intracortical electrodes), (2) decode signals into digital commands, (3) transmit commands to a receiver system, (4) write into receiver’s brain via stimulation (TMS, transcranial electrical stimulation, implanted electrodes). In their review, Nam et al. found that most B2BI studies to date were unidirectional (≈ 73%) and one‑to‑one (≈ 87%) rather than many‑to‑many. A recent study found that social interaction (eye contact / hand contact) enhanced BCI decoding by increasing brain‑to‑brain synchronisation. A finding that may help boost B2BI performance. Technical challenges remain substantial: low bandwidth, noisy signals, inter‑subject variability, stimulus artefacts, and in the case of writing into brain safety and precision.
- Current applications and proof‑of‑concepts
While full telepathic exchange remains speculative, the biotech of brain‑to‑brain has found several proof‑of‑concepts and early applications. For example:
Rehabilitation: B2BIs could help stroke patients or paralysis cases by transmitting intended movement or sensory feedback from therapist to patient brain.
Collaborative problem‑solving: The BrainNet experiment (mentioned above) enabled shared decision‑making via interconnected brains.
Neuro‑enhancement research: Boosting BCI performance via interpersonal neural coupling (as in the social synchronisation study) suggests applications in multi‑user systems.
Although not exactly “telepathy” in the pop sense, these systems illustrate a pathway. A 2024 review of B2BI technology concluded that the field is still in its infancy, but the potential is clear.
- Future prospects
What might the next decade hold? Several trajectories emerge:
Higher bandwidth B2BIs: Implants combined with advanced decoding (e.g., deep learning) may increase information flow between brains.
Bidirectional multi‑user brain‑nets: Rather than just one sender and one receiver, networks of brains may collaborate, sharing intentions, goals and perhaps sensory data.
Augmented human‑human collaboration: In fields like disaster response, remote teams might share brain states to synchronise actions more tightly.
Telepathy‑like communication: The term “telepathy” may become loosely applied when brains exchange meaningful thoughts or concepts via B2BI systems.
Hybrid augmentation of cognition: Combining brain‑to‑brain systems with AI may allow augmented cognition, collective creativity or memory networks. Yet each of these prospects carries formidable technical, ethical and societal hurdles.
- Ethical, legal and societal challenges
The notion of connecting brains raises profound questions. Key issues include:
Privacy and mental autonomy: Brain signals are deeply personal, and writing into the brain raises risks of manipulation or loss of agency.
Identity and personhood: When technology modulates brain activity, who is responsible for actions? What is the boundary of self?
Equity and access: Advanced neurotechnologies may exacerbate social divides if only available to elite users.
Regulation and governance: Standards for human‑brain interfaces are still emerging; for instance, China issued new ethical guidelines for BCI research in 2024.
Misuse and dual‑use: Military, marketing or coercive uses of brain‑to‑brain tech raise concerns.
Thus, while the technology is promising, its deployment must be guided by ethics and oversight from the outset.
- Discussion
The biotech of telepathy via brain‑to‑brain connection is no longer purely speculative. With improvements in BCIs, CBIs and neural decoding, we are edging toward systems that support inter‑brain communication. But the gap between lab demonstrations and everyday telepathy remains large. Limitations in signal fidelity, safety, user interface and ethics mean considerable work lies ahead. For researchers and biotech communicators, the narrative is rich: a story of merging human mind and machine, of connectivity beyond words, and of possibility tempered by caution. To realise the promise, interdisciplinary collaboration will be essential in neuroscience, engineering, ethics, regulation and public engagement. At the same time, the storytelling around such technologies must avoid hype and ground itself in evidence. From my vantage as a biotech writer, the task is exciting: to explain how brain‑to‑brain might evolve, to highlight current breakthroughs (e.g., the 2024 social synchronisation study), and to scrutinise the implications. For labs and clinicians, the practical challenge is to build systems that are safe, effective and socially acceptable.
- Conclusion
In summary, brain‑to‑brain interfaces represent a frontier in neuro technology, one that transforms the idea of telepathy into a scientific endeavour. The fusion of BCI and CBI technologies offers new pathways for communication, rehabilitation and augmentation. Yet this frontier is highly nascent, constrained by technical and ethical challenges. As the field progresses, careful stewardship will determine whether the biotech of telepathy becomes a tool for development or a source of concern. Ultimately, the vision of minds linking directly remains compelling but it must be pursued responsibly.
References
Burwell, S., Sample, M., & Racine, E. (2017). Ethical aspects of brain‑computer interfaces: a scoping review. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(60). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910‑017‑0220‑y
Hildt, E. (2019). Multi‑Person Brain‑To‑Brain Interfaces: Ethical Issues. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 1177. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01177
Jiang, L. P., Stocco, A., Losey, D. M., Abernethy, J. A., Prat, C. S., & Rao, R. P. N. (2018). BrainNet: A multi‑person brain‑to‑brain interface for direct collaboration between brains. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1809.08632
Khuntia, P. K., & Manivannan, P. V. (2023). Review of Neural Interfaces: Means for Establishing Brain–Machine Communication. SN Computer Science, 4, 672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979‑023‑02160‑x
Nam, C. S., Traylor, Z., Chen, M., Jiang, X., Feng, W., & Chhatbar, P. Y. (2021). Direct communication between brains: A systematic PRISMA review of brain‑to‑brain interface. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 15, 656943. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2021.656943
Ploesser, M. (2024). Electrical and magnetic neuromodulation technologies and brain‑computer interfaces: Ethical considerations for enhancement of brain function in healthy people – A systematic scoping review. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery, 102(5). https://doi.org/10.1159/000539757
Shih, J. J., Krusienski, D. J., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2022). Historical perspectives, challenges, and future directions of implantable brain‑computer interfaces for sensorimotor applications. Bioelectronic Medicine, 7(14). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42234‑021‑00076‑6
Sun, Y., Chen, X., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Wu, Q., Gao, S., & Gao, X. (2025). Connecting minds and devices: A fifty‑year review of brain‑computer interfaces. Chinese Journal of Electronics, 34(5), 1464–1474. https://doi.org/10.23919/cje.2023.00.325
Wu, D., Xu, Y., & Lu, B.‑L. (2020). Transfer learning for EEG‑based brain‑computer interfaces: A review of progress made since 2016. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.06286
Xia, K., Duch, W., Sun, Y., Xu, K., Fang, W., Luo, H., Zhang, Y., Sang, D., Xu, X., Wang, F.‑Y., & Wu, D. (2024). Privacy‑preserving brain‑computer interfaces: A systematic review. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.11394
Ye, A.‑T. (2023). A review of the moral responsibility of brain‑computer interface technology based on body theory. Medicine & Philosophy, 44(5), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.12014/j.issn.1002‑0772.2023.05.03
Valle, G., Katic Secerovic, N., Eggemann, D., Gorskii, O., Pavlova, N., Petrini, F. M., Cvancara, P., Stieglitz, T., Musienko, P., Bumbasirevic, M., & Raspopovic, S. (2024). Biomimetic computer‑to‑brain communication enhancing naturalistic touch sensations via peripheral nerve stimulation. Nature Communications, 15(1), Article 1151. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467‑024‑45190‑6
Hu, N., Shi, J.‑X., Chen, C., Xu, H.‑H., Chang, Z.‑H., Hu, P.‑F., Guo, D., Zhang, X.‑W., Shao, W.‑W., Zuo, J.‑C., Ming, D., & Li, X.‑H. (2024). Constructing organoid‑brain‑computer interfaces for neurofunctional repair after brain injury. Nature Communications, 15(1), Article XXXX (1‑16). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467‑024‑53858‑2