Firstly to answer Mr. Finnigan’s question. Unfortunately no. Any non invasive BCI system currently available is worse than other assistive technologies like the one your son is using, both in results and in difficulty of setup and use. The general consensus is that although currently non invasive BCI is funded quite higher than invasive it will not be able to compete with invasive and will even have a very hard time to compete with tried and tested assistive methods (tongue clicks, eye tracking, etc). And this concerns research range BCI systems (costing between $10k and $50k and needing expert users). Talking about commercially available games like Emotive’s is just a waste of time. I and a lot of people from the community are trying everything that comes in the market and nothing is worth even talking about at the level of assistive technology your son already possesses.

Second point I would like to make has to do with the discrepancy between the perceived and real risk of invasive BCI. The following opinion is also supported by neurosurgeons in the field that routinely operate for implantation of different kinds of brain implants (ECoG grids, Deep Brain Stimulators, etc). Unfortunately the data are currently anecdotal and there is yet no research with statistics published that I could point you to. According to these opinions though current invasive BCI implantations are of the same risk as other routine procedures that involve brain surgery that are done as everyday operations in hospitals all around the world (DBS for example) and in general they approach the risk of total anaesthesia. That is they are safe enough to actually be at the same risk level of any total anaesthesia operation like a plastic surgery (yes a breast implant is pretty much as risky as a brain implant). The perceived risk by people has nothing to do really with the realities of the operation table and much more on the relative value we place to the different parts of our bodies and to the fact that BCI invasive operations are not (due to FDA rules) standard procedures thus still an unknowable.
Finally let me state that I think the X prizes conclusion on the merits of invasive versus non invasive BCI is significantly closer to reality than the current state of grand proposals in the world would have one to believe. Although I am a person weary of over hyping and sexing up any field of science (and the destructive results of that I have both witnessed and experienced in my carrier up to today) I do hope the BCI X price (if it becomes reality) will provide the world with a better view of the realities and opportunities of this kind of technology. BCI can be a civilization turning point as long as it is approached with the scientific rigor such an important interface between science and technology demands.

Firstly to answer Mr. Finnigan’s question. Unfortunately no. Any non invasive BCI system currently available is worse than other assistive technologies like the one your son is using, both in results and in difficulty of setup and use. The general consensus is that although currently non invasive BCI is funded quite higher than invasive it will not be able to compete with invasive and will even have a very hard time to compete with tried and tested assistive methods (tongue clicks, eye tracking, etc). And this concerns research range BCI systems (costing between $10k and $50k and needing expert users). Talking about commercially available games like Emotive’s is just a waste of time. I and a lot of people from the community are trying everything that comes in the market and nothing is worth even talking about at the level of assistive technology your son already possesses.

Second point I would like to make has to do with the discrepancy between the perceived and real risk of invasive BCI. The following opinion is also supported by neurosurgeons in the field that routinely operate for implantation of different kinds of brain implants (ECoG grids, Deep Brain Stimulators, etc). Unfortunately the data are currently anecdotal and there is yet no research with statistics published that I could point you to. According to these opinions though current invasive BCI implantations are of the same risk as other routine procedures that involve brain surgery that are done as everyday operations in hospitals all around the world (DBS for example) and in general they approach the risk of total anaesthesia. That is they are safe enough to actually be at the same risk level of any total anaesthesia operation like a plastic surgery (yes a breast implant is pretty much as risky as a brain implant). The perceived risk by people has nothing to do really with the realities of the operation table and much more on the relative value we place to the different parts of our bodies and to the fact that BCI invasive operations are not (due to FDA rules) standard procedures thus still an unknowable.
Finally let me state that I think the X prizes conclusion on the merits of invasive versus non invasive BCI is significantly closer to reality than the current state of grand proposals in the world would have one to believe. Although I am a person weary of over hyping and sexing up any field of science (and the destructive results of that I have both witnessed and experienced in my carrier up to today) I do hope the BCI X price (if it becomes reality) will provide the world with a better view of the realities and opportunities of this kind of technology. BCI can be a civilization turning point as long as it is approached with the scientific rigor such an important interface between science and technology demands.