We had a great time at the @bcisociety.bsky.social meeting in Banff, Canada. We gathered almost all (@hunterschone.bsky.social?) the CBRG attendees (current and former) for the official photo.

@jenpitt.bsky.social @giacomovalle.bsky.social @johndowney.bsky.social @miskarous.bsky.social

The sensations were then replayed, without seeing the object, and they could still identify the object, albeit with mistakes. They often mistakenly selected objects with similar properties (cats and towels are both soft), suggesting that the sensations contained intuitive object features.

Participants saw an object and edited parameters of their artificially created sense of touch to match. Participants described, e.g., the warm fur of a purring cat, or the smooth rigid surface of a door key.

These interactions allowed us to improve the ability of participants to both locate which finger an object was contacting as well as how much force was being applied to it.

Given that some electrodes overlapped, we examined the interaction and found that they generally summed together making more intense sensations.

We compared the percept locations with receptive field locations (area on the hand that when touched evokes neural activity near an electrode) when possible and found that the vast majority of percepts fell within the matched receptive fields.

We first looked to see if ICMS-evoked percepts (a sensation caused by stimulation on an electrode) were in consistent locations across the duration of the study and found that across 2-7 years they were.