BCI Atlas

Axoft’s ultra-soft ‘brain-like’ implant materials: the bet that mechanical matching reduces scarring/drift and stabilizes chronic neural recordings.

Company — American

Axoft (company brief)

BCI · materials · soft electronics · implant · Axoft

Axoft is pursuing a materials-first approach to invasive BCIs: make the implant extremely soft (closer to brain tissue mechanics) so the interface causes less chronic irritation, scarring, and drift.

The core claim is straightforward:

  • conventional implant materials are mechanically mismatched with brain tissue
  • micromotion + foreign-body response degrade long-term signal quality
  • a brain-like polymer could improve long-term stability

What they’re building (public description)

Axoft describes a full stack:

  • a bioinspired soft implant (ultra-soft material)

  • integrated electronics + wireless data path

  • surgical tools to place very soft probes without using the probe itself as the rigid inserter

  • decoding software

  • Axoft homepage: https://axoft.us/

Human/clinical status (public reporting)

Axoft announced approval for a first-in-human clinical study planned for early 2025 at The Panama Clinic. Public reporting describes the study as testing insertion + recording feasibility during already-planned resection surgeries.

Why this is interesting

If Axoft’s mechanical matching actually translates into:

  • lower glial scarring / neuron loss near the interface
  • lower drift
  • stable single-unit recordings over long timescales

…then it’s a direct shot at one of the hardest real problems in invasive BCI: maintaining usable signals for years.

What to watch

  1. Signal stability vs time (weeks → months → years)
  2. Surgical workflow for very soft probes (tooling, reliability, placement repeatability)
  3. Failure modes (buckling, delamination, encapsulation, connector issues)
  4. Actual clinical indication path (what’s the first medical use case, and how does it win vs existing implants?)

Notes on sourcing

This is a draft brief. Current citations are mostly company statements + press/trade reporting about early feasibility testing; we should strengthen with peer-reviewed publications from the underlying academic work and any registry/clinical readouts when available.