Has Neuralink conducted research into pelvic floor or urinary incontinence treatments?

1. Neuralink’s stated clinical focus: paralysis and cortical targets

Neuralink’s public trial pages and progress updates describe PRIME and related studies aimed at people with paralysis and restoring control or sensory function through brain‑computer interfaces; Neuralink’s 2024–25 human trial messaging highlights implants for people with spinal cord injury and ALS rather than lower urinary‑tract disorders ^{[1] [2] [6]}. Independent coverage of Neuralink’s early human implants likewise centers on high‑channel cortical interfaces and functional restoration such as device control and vision work, not pelvic‑floor neuromodulation ^{[2] [7]}.

2. No source evidence tying Neuralink to pelvic‑floor or incontinence research

Search results provided include academic reviews and news about Neuralink’s ambitions and ethics but do not report Neuralink conducting sacral, tibial, or bladder‑focused neuromodulation studies. Scholarly critiques and overviews of Neuralink discuss biomedical and ethical implications broadly but do not list urinary incontinence or pelvic‑floor dysfunction as active programs ^{[8] [9] [10]}. Therefore, available sources do not mention Neuralink working on pelvic‑floor or urinary‑incontinence treatments.

3. Active pelvic‑floor work exists elsewhere in neuromodulation

The pelvic‑floor and lower urinary tract field has multiple companies and clinical programs developing sacral and tibial neuromodulation devices: Neuspera’s integrated sacral neuromodulation (iSNM) system and Medtronic’s tibial/Altaviva programs are cited as FDA‑cleared or advanced clinical efforts for urge urinary incontinence in 2025 ^{[3] [4] [11]}. Academic reporting likewise documents progress in sacral neuromodulation for pelvic‑floor dysfunctions, showing an active, separate ecosystem of technology and trials ^{[12] [3]}.

4. Why a brain implant company could be conflated with pelvic neuromodulation

Neural interface technology and peripheral neuromodulation both use electrical stimulation to modify neural circuits; commentators note Neuralink’s high‑resolution cortical recording and stimulation capabilities and the broader promise of brain‑machine interfaces to treat neurological disease ^{[9] [8]}. That technical overlap—combined with public interest—creates a plausible but unsupported inference that Neuralink would be working on bladder control. Current reporting, however, confines Neuralink’s documented human work to cortical implants and restoration of motor/sensory function ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Transparency and gaps in public reporting about Neuralink

Multiple sources criticize limited public access to Neuralink’s detailed preclinical data and trial registrations, and note that some company documentation and animal‑research records have been hard to navigate, which complicates independent verification of all projects ^{[10] [13]}. These transparency concerns mean absence of evidence in public reporting is not proof of absence; nevertheless, based on the sources provided, Neuralink has not been reported to run pelvic‑floor or urinary‑incontinence studies ^{[10] [1]}.

6. Practical implications for patients and clinicians

For people seeking treatments for urinary incontinence, the available and cited clinical pathways are, as of these reports, peripheral neuromodulation systems (sacral, tibial) from established urogynecology and device manufacturers—not cortical brain implants ^{[3] [5] [4]}. Clinical guidelines and recent device approvals highlight these peripheral approaches as the active, evidence‑backed innovation track for pelvic‑floor dysfunctions ^{[3] [5] [14]}.

Limitations and next steps: my conclusions use only the supplied documents. If you want, I can search for more recent or broader coverage (regulatory filings, ClinicalTrials.gov entries, Neuralink updates) to see whether any new Neuralink initiatives explicitly target bladder or pelvic‑floor control.