The $1.2 million\u00a0project<\/a>\u00a0adds to the Pentagon\u2019s growing investment in the\u00a0$3 billion market<\/a>\u00a0for brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) \u2014 helmets, earbuds, other wearable devices and medical implants that use artificial intelligence to make sense of brain signals.<\/p>\n Elon Musk\u2019s Neuralink<\/a>, perhaps the most high-profile implantable example, has enabled clinical trial patients who cannot move or speak to type words that they imagine. Since\u00a0at least the 1970s<\/a>, the Defense Department has funded the development of BCIs that, among other things,\u00a0restore eyesight<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0control prosthetic arms<\/a>.<\/p>\n Now, advances in AI enable BCIs to interpret or change brain activity with unprecedented accuracy and speed. So much so that some scientists and neuroethicists say the capacity to monitor signals that reveal a warfighter\u2019s or a veteran\u2019s\u00a0mental states<\/a>,\u00a0visual perceptions<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0inner<\/a>\u00a0dialogue<\/a>\u00a0may outpace the ability to shield that data from misuse.<\/p>\n \u201cOne could certainly imagine how enforced use of such devices could create a very dystopian basis for behavioral control,\u201d warned James Giordano, director of the National Defense University\u2019s Center for Disruptive Technology and Future Warfare and Georgetown University Medical Center\u2019s former chief of neuroethics studies.<\/p>\n Consequently, any accessing or use of neural data must require \u201congoing, active informed consent,\u201d so active and retired military have the chance to opt in or out without penalty, he said.<\/p>\n Giordano, who was sharing his personal views and not speaking on behalf of any government agency, added, \u201cThe security of the neurological data used for that individual \u2014 and in that individual\u2019s wellbeing only \u2014 is paramount. It goes beyond simple HIPAA.\u201d<\/p>\n He was referring to the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a law regulating healthcare providers that predates global Wi-Fi and does not cover most app and algorithm developers, commercial cloud providers or consumer wearable designers.<\/p>\n Neurable and Air Force officials say that the non-invasive cognitive fitness tracker will build upon\u00a0technology<\/a>\u00a0in the firm\u2019s consumer BCI product \u2014\u00a0Master & Dynamic luxury headphones containing fabric electroencephalogram, or EEG, sensors<\/a>\u00a0and electrically conductive inks to gauge mental focus.<\/p>\n The $500 device, which launched last June, deploys an algorithm that maps brainwaves to ground-truth markers of focus \u2014 users\u2019 speed and accuracy in finishing tasks, while undistracted and distracted. When the wearer\u2019s brainwaves resemble those tied to flagging attention, the headphones sync with an app that alerts the user: \u201cYou\u2019ve earned a Brain Break.\u201d<\/p>\n The Air Force-funded BCI project will use other headset models, such as noise protectors or helmets, said Neurable co-founder Adam Molnar, who helped secure\u00a0$4 million<\/a>\u00a0for prior military research and development work.<\/p>\n The study will measure cognitive performance with and without pressure \u2014 for instance, memory skill with and without sleep deprivation \u2014 against brainwaves to identify brain activity associated with optimal and suboptimal performance, according to Neurable.<\/p>\n The idea is that alerting service members to significant brain signal changes throughout the day \u2014 or, providing \u201cneurofeedback\u201d \u2014 will train them to adjust their behavior and brainwaves to hit peak performance.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is all within this concept of readiness. How do we make sure that we have a ready and able defense?\u201d said Molnar, who anticipates wrapping development within two years.<\/p>\n Molnar added that the Space Force has a \u201creally cool program where they\u2019re using<\/a>\u00a0the Garmin watch<\/a>,\u201d embedded with heart rate, blood oxygen and other wrist-worn sensors,\u00a0\u201cto help improve cardio fitness and physical activity<\/a>\u201a\u201d but \u201cwe don\u2019t really have that for the brain.\u201d<\/p>\n A comparable neurofeedback tool, he said, may spur \u201cmore robust brain health practices, not just for defense, but also for possibly identifying Parkinson\u2019s or Alzheimer\u2019s disease indicators a decade before you feel your first symptom.\u201d<\/p>\n Air Force Research Laboratory officials said that Neurable\u2019s fabric-based sensing technology may aid multiple operations, inside and outside of the cockpit.<\/p>\n \u201cI suspect that there are a large number of military members for whom a real-time fatigue or cognitive state monitor would be appealing if they thought it would make them more effective at executing the mission,\u201d William Aue, cognitive neuroscience section chief at the\u00a0Air Force Research Laboratory\u2019s 711th Human Performance Wing<\/a>, said by email.<\/p>\n Let them \u2018make their mind up\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n Some neuroethicists, however, cautioned that the use of brain wearables may also invade troops\u2019 privacy and foster prejudice.<\/p>\n \u201cWe need to be much more reflective on, much more concerned about and much more focused on the implications of altering a person\u2019s brainwaves,\u201d through neurofeedback training, \u201cas compared to having them work out more or do more pull-ups,\u201d said Jared Genser, a lawyer and co-founder of the Neurorights Foundation, a group advocating for the legal protection of people\u2019s brain data.<\/p>\n Similarly, Giordano said, \u201cThe concept of personalized medicine must be applied here,\u201d meaning that military leaders must tailor training and performance metrics to the limits of each individual\u2019s brain and body, so \u201cthat you don\u2019t get plateaus, and you\u2019re not beginning to see performance decrement or performance fatigue.\u201d<\/p>\n The Neurorights Foundation\u2019s Medical Director Sean Pauzauskie, a neurologist in the UCHealth University of Colorado system, added that cognitive fitness standards may overstep the proposed right to\u00a0freedom from algorithmic bias based on neural data interpretations<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cIf the warfighter\u2019s brain is incapable of the appropriate plasticity to achieve the desired [mental] state,\u201d through neurofeedback training, \u201cthey could be discriminated\u201d against by their superiors, Pauzauskie said.<\/p>\n Also, EEG data flowing into and out of consumer wearables can reveal several diseases,\u00a0including epilepsy and mild cognitive impairment<\/a>, as well as a\u00a0range of emotions<\/a>.<\/p>\n Via email, Molnar responded to such concerns, saying, \u201cNeurable\u2019s focus is on supporting human performance and safety, not enforcing neurological conformity.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAny feedback provided by our systems is designed to be informational and user-centered, helping individuals understand factors like cognitive workload or fatigue,\u201d he added, \u201cmuch like a heart-rate monitor provides insight into physical exertion.\u201d<\/p>\n Neurable officials said the system\u2019s sensors filter out all EEG data not needed by its algorithms and encrypt the limited amount of necessary data in transit.<\/p>\n \u201cEven if someone hacked someone\u2019s brain data, they would not be able to make sense of it,\u201d Molnar said.<\/p>\n The Air Force\u2019s Aue confirmed that, during experiments, the Air Force lab anonymizes EEG data streaming from Neurable\u2019s wearables, adding that the information is \u201cchallenging to interpret without the algorithms we use to process the raw data.\u201d<\/p>\n But, such protections may not stop adversaries from decoding wearable-based intelligence in the future, as AI becomes smarter and devices utilize more EEG data.<\/p>\n Already,\u00a0in the laboratory<\/a>, algorithms can\u00a0narrow down a person\u2019s identity into a \u201cmindprint\u201d of their mental processing or \u201cbrainprint\u201d of their brain structures, based on EEG data<\/a>\u00a0from a medical headcap, Pauzauskie noted.<\/p>\n Likewise, Genser explained, EEG data that is out into the open, if isolated from a person\u2019s name and identity, will remain deidentified but only for a period. The problem is that, as generative AI-powered software develops, \u201cyou are going to be able to decode a lot more information from the data that escaped, enabling the data to be reidentified and traced back to you personally.\u201d<\/p>\n In an email, Molnar acknowledged that as \u201cAI continues to accelerate research and development, it is prudent to anticipate how capabilities might evolve and to establish safeguards early.\u201d<\/p>\n He suggested additional ethical review, clear boundaries on acceptable uses, and dialogue across technologists, ethicists, policymakers and technology users.<\/p>\n Aue, who has been working on other research with Neurable for four years, said in an email that research study participants \u201care fully informed about the nature of the work before participating.\u201d<\/p>\n That said, as the technology matures, conversations \u201cneed to occur about the ethical use of the technology and what military doctrine might entail,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n Giordano said that the key to any adoption of AI-based neurotech in the military is mandatory informed consent during and after service.<\/p>\n Personnel must receive updates on any adverse effects and information on \u201cthe availability or non-availability of continuity of care if things go wrong,\u201d he added. \u201cThat way, they can make their mind up.\u201d<\/p>\n Reading the minds of wounded warriors?<\/strong><\/p>\n Due to AI, implantable brain devices, much as non-invasive brain wearables, now offer troops and veterans novel insights into themselves \u2014 and possibly the same intel to adversaries, too.<\/p>\n For instance, new eyesight neuroprostheses rely on AI to \u201cbridge artificial vision and neural tissue,\u201d said Christopher Steele, chief of strategy at the Pentagon-backed nonprofit Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium. The consortium provided\u00a0$2 million<\/a>\u00a0to help develop a prototype.<\/p>\n The camera-equipped BCI uses AI to decode brain signals that convey the landscape a person\u2019s eyes are trying to see. AI then translates data from the camera and other external sensors focused on that view into artificial signals that the mind understands as shapes and motion.<\/p>\n Finally, AI compares the desired and perceived scenes and adjusts the artificial signals to show more detail, said Steele, a former director of the Army Medical Research and Development Command.<\/p>\n This self-adjusting AI, while a potential breakthrough for visually-impaired warfighters, also introduces risks, Giordano said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe AI that provides continuous closed-loop signals between the eye and the brain is not monitored,\u201d he explained.<\/p>\n As such, it may self-adapt in a way that falsifies images, omits certain elements of the view or delays transmission of an image, any of which may result in a loss of situational awareness, Giordano said.<\/p>\n Compounding the problem, when the AI \u201csystem itself is vulnerable to hacking,\u201d an adversary can monitor or corrupt the warfighter\u2019s visual input, he added.<\/p>\n \u201cIf we deploy this device downrange\u201d in a combat zone, \u201dcan it be hacked by an enemy?” Steele said. \u201cWe are concerned about the hacking of any medical capability.\u201d<\/p>\n Currently, the system only operates in clinical trials that are subject to HIPAA, and other protections include hardware isolation, encryption and AI guardrails that prevent unsafe adaptation, he added.<\/p>\n Yet, as Giordano cautioned, self-learning AI, by design, can learn good or bad behavior that may override guardrails.<\/p>\n Another military funding arm, the\u00a0Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research Program<\/a>, is underwriting clinical trials to evaluate\u00a0Braingate<\/a>, a forerunner to Musk\u2019s Neuralink implant that translates words a patient imagines into audible speech.<\/p>\n The\u00a0Defense Department\u2019s $2.3 million contribution<\/a>\u00a0aims to help people with ALS \u2014\u00a0a disease associated with military service<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 who cannot move or talk.<\/p>\n This advance is \u201cfoundationally fantastic\u201d for people with various neuro-motor conditions who can think of speech but not generate motor output to move their mouths, meaning \u201cthey\u2019re communicatively locked in,\u201d Giordano said. The device \u201callows these individuals the autonomy of communication.\u201d<\/p>\n At the same time, because the device reads signals in the motor cortex that show attempts at moving the mouth, the tool allows for \u201cwhat might be regarded as mind-reading,\u201d Giordano said.<\/p>\n Currently, human beings, military or not, have no legal right to be free of mind-reading.<\/p>\n Neither international human rights law nor federal regulations safeguard mental privacy, mental autonomy (\u201cfree will\u201d) or neural data, according to the Neurorights Foundation.<\/p>\n Only four states \u2014\u00a0California<\/a>,\u00a0Colorado<\/a>,\u00a0Connecticut<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Montana afford protection to \u201cneural data\u201d<\/a>\u00a0within their state consumer data privacy laws. And one country,\u00a0Chile, has adopted a constitutional amendment to protect \u201cmental integrity.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n As the Foundation\u2019s Genser notes, one of the only countries with a\u00a0national-level set of principles on the ethical use of BCIs, China, may be the least likely to use it<\/a>.<\/p>\n He is pressing for \u201cclear limits\u201d on the purposes for developing and using neurotech and neural data in the military, subject to strong oversight that safeguards the health and autonomy of service members.<\/p>\n \u201cIf we don\u2019t have any tools or standards around the national security implications of emerging neurotechnologies, then how is our military different than any other military?\u201d Genser posited.<\/p>\n As an illustration of unregulated brain alteration, he pointed to the CIA\u2019s MKUltra program, a Cold War-era mind-control experiment that\u00a0tested LSD and other psychedelic drugs on soldiers<\/a>\u00a0and others, sometimes with\u00a0permanent psychological and physical harm<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThe last thing we want is for neurotech to be the next version of MKUltra,\u201d Genser said, \u201cnot using drugs, but using neuro-stimulation or other neural approaches to alter brain activity.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/ICEGVV73XFGMRH674A3QSBO6YI.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/MNJO24A37FHLFHBHNX5YOM3RSU.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/RJEW24NC3FETBOYSCHXREDXGKM.jpg\")