Talk:Neurobionics

Distinction between neurobionics and neuroprosthetics

This article defines neurobionics by stating its goal: "to substitute failed and damaged parts of the human brain and spinal cord by artificial, implantable systems of information processing."

This very closely resembles the definition of neural prostheses: "Neural prostheses are a series of devices that can substitute a motor, sensory or cognitive modality that might have been damaged as a result of an injury or a disease." There is, however, not extensive use of the term neurobionics: Google Books struggles to find mentions in their database, and searches on PudMed yield only a handful of results for neurobionics, while neuroprosthetics triggers results in the order of tens of thousands.

Is there a clear dissociation between neurobionics and neuroprosthetics that I am missing? If not, would it make sense to blank and redirect neurobionics to neuroprosthetics? Otherwise, this article would really need substantial work since it is currently not very strong (single reference, additional reading all by same author who is also credited in the article as alleged founder of the field while providing no independent sources of evidence).

I would love to hear people's thoughts on this. Thanks! Cffisac (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going ahead with the blank and redirect. Cffisac (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]