Neurotech in the Central US: From the Great Lakes to the Gulf
Neurotech in the Central US: From the Great Lakes to the Gulf
The companies, universities, researchers and investors shaping neurotechnology across the American heartland
I’ve enjoyed writing these geographical deep dives partly because I’ve usually known the places, either from living there or through the people I’ve met. The Central US is a little different.
I’ve been to Houston through work and recruited for companies across the region, Chicago has been on my bucketlist for a long time and still is, but I hadn’t appreciated just how much was happening until I started pulling the research together and asking my connections in the space. There are some remarkable university programmes and company histories here, many of which rarely make the headlines.
Minnesota is the obvious one, with its Medtronic links and the numerous spin offs. Texas has had its more recent moment in the spotlight with its BCI links, but also companies like Motif who continue to dominate the conversations around Mental Health. Chicago always felt like it should be busier than it is (a phrase I have used all too often in my geographic preambles.
I’ve sent early drafts to founders, researchers and people I’ve worked with, asking what I’ve missed. The best material here came from those conversations.
Texas: Neural interfaces, medical devices and several different ecosystems
Texas attracts a lot of BCI attention, but Neuralink, Paradromics and Phantom Neuro aren’t building interchangeable technologies. Neuralink and Paradromics pursue implanted brain interfaces; Phantom reads movement-related signals for prosthetic control. The engineering and clinical applications are quite different.
In Austin, Paradromics is developing Connexus to restore communication for people with severe neurological impairment. Phantom Neuro, founded by Connor Glass, is developing intuitive prosthetic control. Its $19 million Series A in April 2025 was led by Ottobock, bringing an established prosthetics manufacturer directly into the business.
Houston: Motif, Rice and therapeutic interfaces
Motif Neurotech is one of the Houston companies I’ve been especially interested in, and I recently spoke with its co-founder and CEO Jacob Robinson about how the technology emerged from Rice University. What makes Motif different from the communication-focused BCIs attracting so many headlines is the clinical problem it is trying to solve: treatment-resistant depression. Its DOT device is a small, wirelessly powered stimulator designed to sit within the skull, above the dura, and deliver stimulation without electrodes penetrating brain tissue. That changes the surgical and engineering questions considerably. Jacob spent more than a decade developing neural-interface technologies at Rice, working with clinicians including Sameer Sheth at Baylor College of Medicine and Sunil Sheth at UTHealth Houston. It’s a strong example of serious university research finding a commercial route, rather than a startup simply choosing Houston as its headquarters.
Rice’s Biotech Launch Pad helped Motif move from research towards a company, and in January 2024 it announced an $18.75 million Series A led by Arboretum Ventures. The investor group included KdT Ventures, Satori Neuro, Dolby Family Ventures, re.Mind Capital, Divergent Capital, TMC Venture Fund, PsyMed Ventures, Empath Ventures and Capital Factory. In April 2024, Rice reported a human demonstration of the miniature stimulator. Then, in April 2026, the university announced that Motif had received FDA authorisation to begin an early feasibility trial of DOT in adults with treatment-resistant depression. The planned clinical network includes Baylor, UTHealth Houston and partners beyond Texas. The authorisation is for clinical investigation, not routine marketing. What interests me is the progression: federally supported engineering at Rice, specialist clinical collaborators, a university commercialisation programme, a financing syndicate and now an investigational device entering a multi-centre clinical programme. It makes Houston’s contribution much clearer than simply putting Motif on a map.
Just before publication, Jacob introduced me to another Rice spinout, Maximum Connectivity Neurotech. The team, including Rice researchers Chong Xie and Lan Luan, is developing an implantable high-bandwidth BCI with flexible neural electrodes. It’s hiring in Houston and has announced a seed round, amount undisclosed. Another reason to watch the Texas Medical Center.
UT Austin: Beyond focused ultrasound
UT Austin has far more neuroengineering going on than I’d appreciated. José del R. Millán has spent decades working on non-invasive BCIs, brain-controlled robotics and neurorehabilitation. Samantha Santacruz works on neural interfaces and closed-loop neuromodulation, while Liberty Hamilton studies speech and brain signals. Huiliang ‘Evan’ Wang and colleagues are developing wearable bioelectronics. That is a serious mix of neural-interface research, clinical rehabilitation and device engineering, far beyond any one startup.
I spoke with Ilya Pyatnitskiy in April about Neurawear and the work emerging from UT Austin around non-invasive neural interfaces. Ilya walked me through the team’s interest in combining focused ultrasound with electrophysiological sensing, and the potential applications they were exploring. One related example of Austin’s research is Huiliang ‘Evan’ Wang’s NEUSLeeP patch, which combines ultrasound stimulation with physiological monitoring. In an early 28-participant study, researchers reported changes in REM sleep. These are early research findings, not an approved clinical treatment, and Neurawear’s precise commercial and clinical status still needs to be distinguished from the university’s published work.
Dallas and the wider Texas market
Dallas contributes another set of businesses. Spark Biomedical‘s work in transcutaneous auricular neurostimulation sits within a broader movement towards less invasive stimulation approaches and new clinical indications. Elsewhere in the state, Backstop Neural is working on spinal cord-related technology, while companies such as Surf Therapeutics, BrainCheck, Senseye and XCath show the range of sensing, diagnostics, bioelectronics and intervention being developed.
Mobia Medical, formerly MicroTransponder, developed Vivistim, which pairs vagus nerve stimulation with rehabilitation after stroke. Its approximately $150 million IPO in May 2026 illustrates a very different commercial stage from the investigational BCI companies.
Illinois: Chicago’s research strength is bigger than its startup count
Chicago is interesting because I’ve recruited for companies there and always found it quite tricky to find local neurotech talent. But writing this piece has made me realise there’s a lot more going on than I appreciated. The universities, hospitals and engineering programmes are a much bigger part of the story than the startup count alone suggests.
Northwestern University has a substantial history in neural engineering, rehabilitation, implantable electronics and biomedical research. The University of Chicago contributes work in neural decoding, sensory feedback and brain mapping. Illinois Tech adds a long-running programme in implantable electronics and artificial vision, while Shirley Ryan AbilityLab sits at the intersection of research, rehabilitation and real-world patient care.
Philip Troyk’s programme at Illinois Tech is a good illustration. In May 2026, the university reported a third participant implanted in its investigational intracortical visual prosthesis study. The research involves a network of clinical and engineering collaborators, including Sigenics. This is exactly the sort of substantial neurotechnology activity that can be missed if we only search for standalone startup headquarters.
Marc Slutzky at Northwestern studies neural decoding, communication interfaces and motor recovery, and advises Epia Neuro. He also contributed to a 2026 Precision Neuroscience preprint examining high-resolution cortical recordings from 70 patients, linking Chicago researchers with national BCI programmes.
At Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Arun Jayaraman leads a registered study examining how assistive technologies, including devices used by Neuralink participants, support everyday digital tasks. It’s about what neural interfaces actually help people do, rather than another implantation study.
Ben Seidman, Director of Commercial Innovation at NuCurrent, helped me get a better sense of Chicago’s engineering and research community. One story I’d underestimated was the University of Chicago’s work on restoring touch. The late Sliman Bensmaia studied how the brain represents texture and sensation, then developed algorithms to translate signals from sensors on prosthetic hands into patterns of electrical stimulation. That research continues through Charles Greenspon and colleagues. In April 2026, UChicago Medicine’s Sensorimotor Bionics Group, with Peter Warnke and Greenspon leading the clinical research team, announced a partnership with Precision Neuroscience to study neural decoding and neuroprosthetics.
What the companies reveal
NuCurrent itself began at Northwestern in 2009 as NeuRDS, investigating wireless power for implanted neurostimulators. It has since grown into a broader engineering and licensing business across medical devices and other electronics. That original neuroengineering problem is a useful place to start understanding the company’s wider technical contribution.
Ben also directed me to John Rogers at Northwestern, whose work on biointegrated electronics has helped develop flexible wireless devices that conform to the body. Sibel Health provides a commercial example through wireless physiological monitoring. It isn’t an implantable BCI company, but this is exactly why I wanted to understand the engineers and enabling technologies behind the headline products.
NeuroLux, Rhaeos and Coapt show other sides of the Chicago picture, from research tools and shunt-flow monitoring to prosthetic-control software. The companies are at different stages and some sit within larger corporate groups, which matters when comparing them with independent startups.
University of Chicago and the next generation of brain mapping
Bobby Kasthuri pushed me to look further back. Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts published an early mathematical model of neural networks in 1943, linked to Chicago’s intellectual community. In 1953, Eugene Aserinsky and Nathaniel Kleitman at UChicago reported REM sleep. Both discoveries came decades before today’s neurotech companies.
The work hasn’t stopped there. Bobby and colleagues are now developing ways to map neural circuits at extraordinary resolution through connectomics. In 2024, a team involving the University of Chicago, the University of Illinois Chicago and Chicago State University received a $4.8 million NIH BRAIN Initiative grant to develop faster brain imaging using photoemission electron microscopy. The microscope arrived at UChicago in January 2026. Bobby’s Argonne National Laboratory connection adds another part of the wider research network. This is substantial scientific infrastructure, whether or not it produces a new startup in the next twelve months.
Through Bobby, I heard from Samir Mayekar at UChicago’s Polsky Center. His team highlighted Bozhi Tian’s optoelectronic implants, lithium-driven neural inhibition devices and ultrathin wireless biointerfaces. What I love is that these aren’t necessarily companies yet. They’re technologies that could become businesses or find their way into existing devices. There’s a lot more happening in the labs than most of us realise.
Minnesota: Where medical devices become an industry
Minnesota is where the story shifts towards the practical experience of developing and selling medical devices. Medtronic has longstanding operations in the state, but the workforce and manufacturing network now extend well beyond one company. Medtronic is headquartered in Ireland, while Minnesota remains a major operational centre.
Amaza Reitmeier, CEO of Pharaoh Neuro and a former Medtronic executive, pushed me to look at the concentration of established medical-device businesses in Minnesota. Boston Scientific, Abbott, Philips and Smiths Medical all have substantial operations in the region alongside Medtronic. The proximity matters because engineers, regulatory specialists and commercial leaders develop their experience inside these businesses, then bring it into smaller companies. The University of Minnesota’s biomedical engineering programmes are part of that talent pipeline too.
ShiraTronics has been developing an implantable neurostimulation approach for chronic migraine. Its $66 million Series B in October 2024 was led by Norwest Venture Partners and included specialist healthcare investors. NeuroOne is working across intracranial recording and therapeutic technologies. Fasikl is developing peripheral neural interfaces, while CVRx, SynerFuse and others show the state’s breadth across bioelectronic medicine and implantable stimulation.
Monteris Medical represents another side of the market, with MRI-guided laser technology used for minimally invasive treatment inside the brain. In March 2026, it announced a $28 million Series E equity financing alongside a new $35 million credit facility. Those are two different financing instruments, not $63 million in new venture equity. The distinction is particularly important when comparing more established device companies with very early-stage startups.
Pharaoh Neuro brings another dimension to the market. Amaza and the team are developing the Neurapheresis cerebrospinal-fluid management platform and related neurosurgical access technology for neurocritical care. The company announced a $20 million Series A in February 2026. It’s a reminder of the breadth of the work happening here, from stimulation to technologies designed around very different neurological clinical needs.
On 27 October 2026, Pharaoh announced that the FDA had granted Breakthrough Device Designation to its investigational Neurapheresis system, which is designed to actively filter blood and breakdown products from cerebrospinal fluid following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. That designation offers a route for more frequent interaction with regulators. It is not FDA approval or clearance, and the system remains investigational. It’s a timely example of how long the journey from a neurological clinical need to an established therapy can be.
Minnesota also has specialist businesses working in auditory technology, including Envoy Medical and iotaMotion, alongside companies focused on precision sensing, neural interfaces and neurological rehabilitation. Cirtec Medical, Forj Medical (formerly Minnetronix) and the wider component and manufacturing sector are another important part of the story. Complex implantable technology has to be engineered, tested, manufactured and supported long after the initial research has been completed.
Amaza pointed out a rather glaring omission in my first draft: HistoSonics. Its Edison platform uses focused ultrasound to destroy targeted tissue. It’s primarily oncology rather than core neurotech, but an important Minnesota medtech success. It raised $102 million in 2024 and announced $250 million growth financing in October 2025. A separate $2.25 billion majority-stake transaction preceded a June 2026 financing at a roughly $3.75 billion valuation; that round’s amount wasn’t disclosed.
The connections between these companies aren’t just geographical. In July 2026, HistoSonics chairman and chief executive Mike Blue joined the board of Pharaoh Neuro, bringing experience of developing and commercialising a new medical-device platform. That’s a particularly good illustration of Amaza’s wider point: Minnesota’s established and emerging businesses draw on a shared pool of people who have already tackled many of the hardest parts of developing a regulated technology.
Medical Alley, capital and commercial experience
Medical Alley deserves more explanation than a passing mention. It is a Minnesota-based health-technology industry network bringing together device manufacturers, startups, health systems, investors and service providers. The value is partly practical: introductions, specialist expertise, industry relationships and help navigating the move from product development into clinical and commercial use. Its partnership with Capita3, an investor and company-building organisation focused on women-led health-technology businesses, illustrates how that network can also support emerging founders.
Ohio: Decades of neurotechnology before it became fashionable
Jon Sakai is one of the people I reached out to when I began researching Ohio. He’d just given a talk on Cleveland’s neurotech history and sent back far more detail than I’d expected. He encouraged me to look beyond the modern startup population towards decades of work in functional electrical stimulation and neuroprosthetics.
The Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation Center was established in 1991 around a partnership involving Case Western Reserve University, the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA and MetroHealth. University Hospitals joined the consortium in 2015, followed by Cleveland Clinic in 2017. That history matters because it shows how clinicians, engineers, patients, public research funding and universities helped build a field long before today’s BCI investment cycle.
Jon took me back to engineer Tom Mortimer and clinical collaborators at Case Western Reserve in the late 1960s, then through the work of Hunter Peckham, Dominique Durand, Kevin Kilgore and Niloy Bhadra. These programmes helped establish mechanisms of action and intellectual property that later companies could build on. They were supported by universities, the VA, hospitals and public research funding long before the industry attracted today’s level of venture attention.
NeuroControl, SPR and what commercialisation really means
NeuroControl’s Freehand system is a particularly instructive historical example. The FDA approved the implantable upper-extremity neuroprosthesis in 1997 for a defined group of people living with tetraplegia after spinal cord injury. That was a significant technical and regulatory accomplishment. But developing something that works, obtaining approval and building a commercially sustainable organisation are three different challenges, especially when the potential patient population is limited.
That experience is part of the commercial history behind later Cleveland companies. SPR Therapeutics developed the SPRINT temporary peripheral nerve stimulation system for pain management and was acquired by Medtronic in July 2026 in a transaction the buyer valued at $650 million. The two cases make a useful contrast: one demonstrates the difficulty of turning an important clinical invention into a durable business, while the other demonstrates how specialist neuromodulation technology can reach substantial commercial scale.
The Cleveland company network includes Synapse Biomedical, Checkpoint Surgical, Enspire DBS Therapy, Neuronoff and Great Lakes NeuroTechnologies. Jon also pointed me to Open Neurotech, CleveMed‘s sleep-testing history and its subsequent acquisition by Beacon Biosignals, as well as NDI Medical’s company-building role. Neuros Medical has Cleveland research roots although its corporate base is in Minnesota. These connections are more interesting when traced through the people and technology than when treated as unrelated company names.
The Cleveland company-building infrastructure is another part of Ohio’s story. Andrew Cornwell directs Case Western Reserve’s 11000 Cedar Startup Incubator, where Afference and Neuronoff have a presence. Afference works on neural haptics, connecting electronic systems with sensation. These local research and operating relationships are worth tracing separately from a company’s official headquarters, which can be elsewhere.
Columbus adds another thread through Battelle’s brain-interface research and the work associated with NeuroLife and ActivateNeuro. The NeuroDesign Entrepreneurs Workshop in Cleveland also deserves attention: it is explicitly concerned with helping researchers and engineers learn the commercial realities of translating a scientific idea into a medical product.
NeuroNEO is working to connect Cleveland’s wider neurotechnology community, while NeuroDesign’s Entrepreneurs Workshop brings clinicians, engineers and entrepreneurs together around unmet needs. Jon described eight workshops and roughly 250 students in its first six years. Along with 11000 Cedar, these programmes show how the region helps researchers make the transition into building companies.
Michigan and Wisconsin: Research, interfaces and technology that travels
Michigan brings a smaller group of specialist companies, including NeuroNexus, Blue Arbor Technologies and Backyard Brains. Their work spans neural probes, prosthetic interfaces and research tools. The University of Michigan is also important to the history of neuroengineering and human-computer interfaces, including research connected to Neurable, which subsequently developed its commercial identity outside the state.
Wisconsin has a different mix, including Natus Neuro, Ad-Tech Medical, BrainXell and EnsoData. There is established clinical electrophysiology expertise, research instrumentation, cell-model development and sleep diagnostics. The University of Wisconsin–Madison and the Medical College of Wisconsin are important academic centres in their own right.
But some of the most interesting Wisconsin connections lead to businesses headquartered elsewhere. MadSci’s SmartShunt research history connects to Wisconsin while the company is based in Chicago. BrainSync Medical, an investigational neurorehabilitation company associated with Minnesota, has described a University of Wisconsin–Madison technology licence. Both examples make the same point: the research institution’s contribution is not erased when the resulting business crosses a state line.
Indiana, Missouri, Iowa and Nebraska: More than the local company population
Indiana has specialist businesses including NeurAxis, working in percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation, and SpeechVive, whose Parkinson’s-related speech-assistance technology originated in research at Purdue University. Purdue’s broader neuroengineering and implantable microsystems work also belongs in the story, whether or not every project becomes a company based in Indiana.
Missouri is especially interesting around St Louis and Washington University. Neurolutions‘ BCI technology for stroke rehabilitation is an important example, although its merger with Kandu Health in 2025 means the original company and subsequent corporate identity should not be counted as separate independent businesses. The university’s neuroscience research and the NEURO360 commercialisation initiative contribute another layer beyond the company list.
Iowa deserves more attention than its short company list suggests. Its neuroscience community includes the Iowa Neuroscience Institute, the University of Iowa’s neuromodulation research and longstanding work in cochlear implantation. iotaMotion was founded by Iowa surgeons before building its commercial base in Minnesota. Emerging neurological imaging and AI businesses also warrant attention, but I want to distinguish confirmed local operating companies from projects that are still in research or early commercialisation.
Nebraska has important work at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and Boys Town’s Institute for Human Neuroscience. Their research spans neurological disease, electrophysiology, imaging and brain development. The state also has emerging neurotherapeutics and diagnostic leads, although the scientific origin of a technology doesn’t necessarily tell us where a commercial company is headquartered.
Oklahoma, Arkansas, the Dakotas, Kansas and Louisiana: The gaps are part of the story
Oklahoma has more to offer than a blank space on a company map. Tulsa’s Laureate Institute for Brain Research is part of a substantial brain-imaging and neuroscience community, while university research and specialist EEG and intraoperative-monitoring services contribute to clinical practice. Those service businesses shouldn’t be counted as implantable-device startups, but they are part of the work being done locally.
Arkansas has substantial clinical and university research, including work on implanted peripheral nerve interfaces and sensory feedback for prosthetic hands. The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences contributes neuroscience and imaging, while BioVentures supports commercialisation. North Dakota and South Dakota also have research programmes in neural sensing, cognition and movement, including work at the University of North Dakota and the University of South Dakota. I haven’t found the same depth of independent device companies in every state, and I don’t want to invent them to fill a chart.
Louisiana adds another type of company through 28bio, associated with the earlier AxoSim business, which develops neural research models and nerve-on-chip systems relevant to drug discovery. Tulane and LSU Health New Orleans contribute neuroscience research and emerging commercialisation activity, including early-stage leads that still require independent verification.
This is where I expect to get my ass handed to me. I’ve found interesting research across the smaller states, but I’m certain there are companies I haven’t found. This is V1. If I’ve missed your company, lab or an important connection, tell me. There will be a V2.
Capital: What was actually financed?
The funding story across the Central US is substantial, but it is also unusually easy to misread. A $20 million equity round, an NIH research grant, a university technology-transfer programme, a $35 million debt facility and a $650 million acquisition can all appear in the same market database. They are not five versions of the same thing and they certainly should not be added together as though they represent new venture capital.
A few transactions illustrate the different stages of development: Motif’s $18.75 million Series A, Phantom’s $19 million Series A, Pharaoh’s $20 million Series A, ShiraTronics’ $66 million Series B, Monteris’ later-stage financing and the SPR acquisition. Mobia’s 2026 IPO is another distinct kind of event. The numbers are useful when properly classified, but what matters more is what stage the company had reached and what its funding was intended to achieve.
The investors span the country. Arboretum Ventures, Prime Movers Lab, Norwest Venture Partners, Dolby Family Ventures, KdT Ventures, Ottobock, Hatteras Venture Partners, OSF Ventures, UChicago Medicine Ventures and others appear in the histories of companies working on very different neurological problems. A fund backing a Texas company is not necessarily a Texas investor, and a business with a Wisconsin research origin may raise money from institutions several states away.
The people behind the companies
I’ve worked in recruitment for most of my career, so I inevitably look at these regions through the people building the technology. A neurotechnology company may need neuroscientists, electrical engineers, embedded-systems specialists, clinical scientists, quality and regulatory leaders, reimbursement experts and commercial teams, often long before it has the resources of an established medical-device business.
Working in recruitment means I also see these places through the people who move between companies. The engineer who developed one implant, the clinical leader who ran its trial and the commercial executive who helped launch it often turn up again at the next business. Those careers connect regions in ways a headquarters map can’t show.
A much bigger picture than the headlines
What keeps coming through in this research is how differently these ecosystems developed. Texas has some of the most visible neural-interface businesses. Minnesota has decades of medical-device experience. Cleveland’s stimulation research helped create companies that are still shaping the industry, while Chicago has an extraordinary academic and clinical research community. And in the smaller states, some of the most interesting work is happening well before it becomes a business.
This piece ended up longer than I expected, largely because people in these regions kept showing me things I’d missed. A few conversations became new company introductions, research papers and parts of the history I’d never properly understood. That’s what makes doing these articles worthwhile.
The map isn’t finished, particularly in the smaller states. If I’ve missed your company, a laboratory or an important piece of the story, get in touch. I’ll keep adding to it, and we’ll come back with a V2.
—
Company taxonomy and investment history
The company and capital records below support the article’s regional research. They include independent businesses alongside historical identities, acquired operations, adjacent technologies and unresolved leads. Financial events include investment rounds, grants, debt, public offerings and acquisitions; they are different types of transactions and should not be added together as a venture-funding total...
Continue reading this post for free in the Substack app
© 2026 The Neurotech Newsletter
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104