This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As 66.57.249.182 said, 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 neurocybernetics is more specifically about designing interfaces. I believe neurocybernetics should be combined with Brain-computer interface instead.
Semiconscious 07:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nope, BCI's in it current states make use of completely different technology. Esentially if matured entirely neuro cybernetics would be the discipline handling the technology for a fully capable interface, however will hardly attempt to be a BCI, but rather a brainstem CI so with mere interest of the cortical controllable regions. Slicky 17:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
computational neuroscience is ultimately one of the fields that will have to be matured and progressed far enough to further advances in terms of applications of neuro cybernetics but is essentially something completely different than neuro cybernetics. They all clearly are subject to neurology though and as such could be seen as subgroups or branches of this discipline!
Also it is usually referred to as neuro cybernetics or bio cybernetics ( i dunno if there really is a difference; at first guess i would say the first is more microscopic and not necessarily restricted to living / macroscopic organisms, neither would be the latter but it implies a certain tedency towards the application in higher organisms). When doing research search always for both as both are essentially underlying the same fundamentals. Slicky 17:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the assessment that this article should be merged somehow with neural engineering. My impression is that neuro cybernetics is more of a historical term which is becoming superceded by neural engineering (or is it neuroengineering? nobody seems to agree on the exact term!) And to be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that "neuro cybernetics" was ever in wide usage at all. Does anybody have references that show that it is actually in use? -- Joeyo 01:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No one seems to have any qualms about the moral and ethical implications of such research. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.166.170.217 (
talk) 21:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Why is it "neuro cybernetics" and not "neurocybernetics"? It doesn't make sense when compared with other terms created by adding prefixes (e.g. biocybernetics, neurobiology or neuropharmacology). 194.88.158.170 ( talk) 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As 66.57.249.182 said, 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 neurocybernetics is more specifically about designing interfaces. I believe neurocybernetics should be combined with Brain-computer interface instead.
Semiconscious 07:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nope, BCI's in it current states make use of completely different technology. Esentially if matured entirely neuro cybernetics would be the discipline handling the technology for a fully capable interface, however will hardly attempt to be a BCI, but rather a brainstem CI so with mere interest of the cortical controllable regions. Slicky 17:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
computational neuroscience is ultimately one of the fields that will have to be matured and progressed far enough to further advances in terms of applications of neuro cybernetics but is essentially something completely different than neuro cybernetics. They all clearly are subject to neurology though and as such could be seen as subgroups or branches of this discipline!
Also it is usually referred to as neuro cybernetics or bio cybernetics ( i dunno if there really is a difference; at first guess i would say the first is more microscopic and not necessarily restricted to living / macroscopic organisms, neither would be the latter but it implies a certain tedency towards the application in higher organisms). When doing research search always for both as both are essentially underlying the same fundamentals. Slicky 17:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the assessment that this article should be merged somehow with neural engineering. My impression is that neuro cybernetics is more of a historical term which is becoming superceded by neural engineering (or is it neuroengineering? nobody seems to agree on the exact term!) And to be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that "neuro cybernetics" was ever in wide usage at all. Does anybody have references that show that it is actually in use? -- Joeyo 01:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No one seems to have any qualms about the moral and ethical implications of such research. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.166.170.217 (
talk) 21:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Why is it "neuro cybernetics" and not "neurocybernetics"? It doesn't make sense when compared with other terms created by adding prefixes (e.g. biocybernetics, neurobiology or neuropharmacology). 194.88.158.170 ( talk) 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)