After revolutionary brain-computer implant, man with paralysis can feed himself 71%

By Andrew Paul24%

7/16/2026, 3:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Anecdotal, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 25.5% saturation with 141 hits. Analysis detected 1,309 faulty-reasoning hits from 552 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.9% and a BS Rank of 71% (6,153 of 21,097 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.80% of the article peer group.

In 2023, neurologists at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in New York achieved a medical breakthrough that many experts believed was once impossible. 
After 15-hours of open-brain surgery, a team of specialists successfully completed the first “double neural bypass” procedure, and installed and virtually mapped a brain-computer interface (BCI) for a man named Keith Thomas living with quadriplegia. 
As Thomas slowly regained feeling and strength in his arm and wrist, the monumental advancement made international headlines and was inducted into TIME Magazine ’s Best Inventions Hall of Fame . 
“There was a time that I didn’t know if I was even going to live, or if I wanted to, frankly. 
And now, I can feel the touch of someone holding my hand. 
It’s overwhelming,” Thomas said four months after the initial surgery. 
Nearly three years later, the pioneers behind the double neural bypass have offered updates on their findings and Thomas’ progress. 
As they detail in a study published today in the journal Nature Medicine , the combination of BCI and artificial intelligence technologies continues to provide their patient with lasting, life-changing recovery in their limb. 
By rerouting the nervous system’s neural pathways, Thomas can now feed himself and drink from a cup using restored feeling in his hand, and has gained increased both his arm strength and wrist sensation. 
“This approach is a new way to treat severe paralysis—we’re not just bypassing the injury, we’re actually rewiring the nervous system,” Chad Bouton , a bioelectronic medical specialist and study co-author, said in a statement. 
The system relies on five microelectrode arrays surgically installed in Thomas’ brain, which machine learning algorithms then interpret brain signals denoting movement with nearly 85 percent accuracy. 
Those neural messages are then translated into electrical stimulation patterns given to the forearm muscles, which move as intended. 
Meanwhile, sensors inside a 3D-printed limb brace that measures grasping pressure. 
This then creates electrical stimulation in the sensory cortex to generate the perception of touch. 
The results are so effective that Thomas is now able to grab and lift hollow eggshells without breaking them nearly 90 percent of the time. 
He can also perform this and similarly calculated tasks while talking—a vast improvement compared to existing BCI systems when handling cognitive burdens. 
“Being able to feel my sister’s hand, to pet my dog and feel her fur— these experiences that the injury took away have been restored. 
“But beyond the study sessions, I can now scratch my face, wipe my eyes independently,” Thomas said. 
“The technology has given me back both connection and sense of self.” 
“This research holds promise for millions of patients, opening up potential for future research and practical clinical applications that could help hundreds of thousands of people living with paralysis,” said Bouton. 
Moving forward, the team is working to improve their system while expanding clinical trials to include other patients with differing levels of spinal injuries and neurological conditions. 
Recently, they tested the first interhuman neural bypass , which allowed Thomas to feel sensations from another patient as they touched multiple objects. 
“We’re not just bypassing the injury, we’re actually rewiring the nervous system,” Bouton added. 
The post After revolutionary brain-computer implant, man with paralysis can feed himself appeared first on Popular Science . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.2%Andrew Paul: 2.6%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.5%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Andrew Paul: 3.1%Popular Science: 2.6%Availability Heuristic4.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Andrew Paul: 3.3%Popular Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 4.5%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 8.3%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion8.3%This article: 8.9%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 24.6%Andrew Paul: 6.9%Popular Science: 4.7%Optimism Bias24.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.8%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Andrew Paul: 4.4%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 15.8%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 2.1%Halo Effect15.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.4%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias13.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.5%Andrew Paul: 5.6%Popular Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority22.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.2%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.8%Andrew Paul: 5.1%Popular Science: 4.2%Hasty Generalization17.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 17.6%Andrew Paul: 3.4%Popular Science: 2.8%Appeal to Emotion17.6%This article: 8.9%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question8.9%This article: 8.9%Andrew Paul: 2.4%Popular Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 24.6%Andrew Paul: 1.9%Popular Science: 2.2%Anecdotal24.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.4%Andrew Paul: 2.2%Popular Science: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.8%Andrew Paul: 2.3%Popular Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote3.8%This article: 3.8%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection3.8%This article: 25.5%Andrew Paul: 5.1%Popular Science: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice25.5%This article: 5.6%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination5.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

552 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers32%attributed speech375writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageKeith Thomas • 21 words • 100.0% coverageKeith Thomas • 12 words • 0.0% coverageKeith Thomas • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageChad Bouton • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageKeith Thomas • 25 words • 0.0% coverageKeith Thomas • 17 words • 0.0% coverageKeith Thomas • 12 words • 0.0% coverageChad Bouton • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageChad Bouton • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chad Bouton

100%flagged-word coverage
80 attributed words45% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Indoctrination+38.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Chad Bouton: 38.8%38.8%Biased Writer Voice-37.6 ptsWriter: 37.6%Chad Bouton: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.