3 Funding Rounds $1.9m Money raised BitBrain Technologies is a company specialized in neuroscience and neurotechnology, working together with universities all over Europe. Industries: Big data Sleep Sleep aid Location: Barcelona Zaragoza Boston Key people: Javier Minguez Zafra Maria Lopez Valdes **********@bitbrain.com SPR Therapeutics logo SPR Therapeutics 3 Funding Rounds $30.3m Money raised SPR Therapeutics is a nerve Stimulation Therapy founded in 2010 by Maria E. Bennett. Industries: Neurostimulation Engineering Biomedical engineering Location: Cleveland Key people: Maria E. Bennett Geoffrey Thrope *******@sprtherapeutics.com MindAffect logo MindAffect 1 Funding Rounds $1.2m Money raised MindAffect provides brain response based hearing and vision diagnostic systems. Industries: Neurotechnology Neuroscience Artificial Intelligence (AI) Location: Arnhem Key people: Ivo de la Rive Box linkedin OpenBCI logo OpenBCI 2 Funding Rounds $4.0m Money raised OpenBCI is an open-source brain-computer interface platform founded in 2014 by Conor Russomanno. Industries: Electronics Open-source software Biosensor Location: Brooklyn Key people: Conor Russomanno *****@openbci.com Joel Murphy ****@openbci.com Advanced Brain Monitoring logo Advanced Brain Monitoring 1 Funding Rounds $836.8k Money raised A company developing and implementing mobile, user-friendly platforms for acquiring, integrating, analyzing and reporting multi-sensor data in real-world applications. Industries: Biosensor Big data Metamaterial Location: Carlsbad, California San Diego Key people: Dan Levendowski PainQx logo PainQx 2 Funding Rounds $4.1m Money raised PainQx is a New York City-based diagnostics and software company developing pain measurement systems. Industries: Software Neuroscience Diagnostic tools Location: New York City Kennett Square, Pennsylvania Key people: Alexander Ruckdaeschel Frank Minella ********@painqx.com Humm (wearable) logo Humm (wearable) 1 Funding Rounds $2.6m Money raised Humm is a wearable patch that improves working memory by gently stimulating the brain's attention and learning center. Industries: Biotechnology Neurotechnology Consumer biotechnology Location: Perth San Francisco Key people: Christopher Norman Iain McIntyre (entrepreneur) ****@humm.tech Ahmud Auleear Cumulus Neurosciences logo Cumulus Neurosciences 2 Funding Rounds $12.7m Money raised AI platform for integrated physiological and digital biomarkers. Industries: Neuroscience Neurotechnology Biomarker Location: Belfast Key people: Ruth McKernan ****.********@cumulusneuro.com Brian Murphy *****@cumulusneuro.com Wren Therapeutics logo Wren Therapeutics 2 Funding Rounds $40.4m Money raised Wren Therapeutics is a small Molecules Targeting Protein Mis-Folding founded in 2016 by Chris Dobson. Industries: Biotechnology Biomedical engineering Neuroscience Location: United Kingdom Cambridge, Massachusetts Cambridge, Cambridgeshire Key people: Samuel Cohen linkedin Chris Dobson Braingaze logo Braingaze 1 Funding Rounds $1.6m Money raised Braingaze is a Barcelona-based company founded in 2013 by Hans Supèr. Industries: Neuroscience Biotechnology Neurotechnology Location: Barcelona Key people: Laszlo Bax ******@braingaze.com Hans Supèr ****@braingaze.com MicroTransponder, Inc. logo MicroTransponder, Inc. 1 Funding Rounds $53.0m Money raised MicroTransponder, Inc. is an Austin, Texas-based company founded in 2007 by Jordan Curnes, Frank McEachern, William Rosellini and Navzer Engineer. Industries: Neurotechnology Health technology Neuroscience Location: Austin, Texas Key people: Navzer Engineer linkedin William Rosellini ****@cytoimmune.com Frank McEachern g.tec medical engineering logo g.tec medical engineering 1 Funding Rounds $2.2m Money raised g.tec develops and produces brain-computer interfaces and neurotechnologies for invasive and non-invasive recordings. Industries: Biosensor Medical device Diagnostic tools Location: Austria Key people: Christoph Guger *****@gtec.at Günter Edlinger ********@gtec.at QV Bioelectronics Ltd. logo QV Bioelectronics Ltd. 1 Funding Rounds $890.0k Money raised Longer, Better Quality Lives for Brain Tumour Patients Industries: Health technology Neuroscience Manufacturing Location: Manchester Key people: Richard Fu *******@qvbio.co.uk Chris Bullock ********@cleargov.com Nalu Medical logo Nalu Medical 2 Funding Rounds $104.0m Money raised Nalu Medical is a medical Devices. Industries: Biomedical engineering Neurotechnology Neurostimulation Location: Carlsbad, California San Diego Key people: Nick Pliam linkedin HypnoVR logo HypnoVR 2 Funding Rounds $10.2m Money raised Virtual reality software aiding anesthesia, pain relief, and anxiety treatment. Industries: Neurotechnology Neuroscience Brain-computer interface Location: Strasbourg Key people: Chloe Chauvin **@hypnovr.io Denis Graff **@hypnovr.io Nicolas Schaettel ****************@hypnovr.io Sign up to access our full database Enter your email and get access to 71,000 + technology companies you can partner with. Join 29000+ founders, operators, and investors. Seedtable logo Seedtable combines proprietary data with advanced AI technology to accelerate professional success across industries. © 2025 Seedtable™. All Rights Reserved. ------------- https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/4371195/cognitive-warfare-2026-natos-chief-scientist-report-as-sentinel-call-for-operat/ PUBLICATIONS Through its publications, INSS aims to provide expert insights, cutting-edge research, and innovative solutions that contribute to shaping the national security discourse and preparing the next generation of leaders in the field. News | Jan. 6, 2026 Cognitive Warfare 2026: NATO’s Chief Scientist Report as Sentinel Call for Operational Readiness By Dr. James Girodano Strategic Insights The recently released NATO Chief Scientist’s 2025 Report on Cognitive Warfare provides a timely acknowledgment of a strategic reality that contemporary conflict is increasingly behavior-centric, and the decisive terrain is often not geographic but how individuals and groups perceive, interpret, decide, and act. I have had the privilege, honor and pleasure of working on NATO’s initial cognitive warfare studies beginning in 2018, which explicitly emphasized that cognitive warfare is not merely “PSYOPS with better tools.” Indeed, NATO efforts in this space echo our group’s ongoing work that has argued for a more expansive, yet nonetheless realistic view of cognitive warfare as a mix of emerging technologies, influence methods, and adversary exploitation of societal fault lines that can be engaged to shape the conditions under which humans form beliefs, allocate attention, and generate intent. The nature of warfare may remain the same, but operationally I posit that cognitive engagements change three fundamentals of military missions, namely: • The target set expands from discrete platforms or messages to human cognitive and social systems (trust networks, identity narratives, institutional legitimacy). • The battlespace becomes continuous, operating non-kinetically below thresholds of armed conflict, blending strategic competition, hybrid pressure, and wartime maneuvering. • The measure of effectiveness shifts from short-term message penetration to durable changes in cognitive patterns and behavioral dispositions (e.g., risk perception, threat appraisal, civic cohesion, and willingness to support military action). Increasingly, neurotechnology and artificial intelligence (AI) are becoming dual-use instruments for cognitive engagement to leverage biological, psychological, and social levels of effect, as follows: Biological Level: Manipulating Capacity This level directly targets the nervous system as the focal substrate of thought, emotion and behavior. Neuroscientific techniques and technologies (neuroS/T) can be used to assess and affect individual (and aggregate/group) physiological functions to alter (i.e., disrupt, direct, degrade or improve) cognitive capabilities, mental states, decision-making and actions. Psychological Level: Manipulating Interpretation Here, the focus is upon influencing cognitive appraisal(s), framing, emotions, and the patterns of thought that contribute to and shape individual and collective attitudes, beliefs and judgment. AI-enabled influence (for example, on social and public media) can tailor stimuli to engage individual and group vulnerabilities and volatilities (which may have been previously or co-modulated through the use of neuroS/T to affect susceptibility by altering arousal states or attentional gating). Social Level: Manipulating Cohesion This is the over-arching level for influencing shared narratives, beliefs, institutional legitimacy, and public views, values and activities. Cognitive engagement seeks to fracture cohesion, weaponize identity, and create epistemic chaos. In this light, NATO’s emphasis that the cognitive front is not only military but societal is both accurate and strategically important to recognize. In practice, these levels are not mutually exclusive, but rather can and should be regarded as complementary, reinforcing domains and dimensions of vulnerability, influence, and targetability; utilizing bottom-up (biological targeting to incur psychological and social effects), middle-out (i.e., psychological targeting to evoke both biological responses and social manifestations), and top-down (i.e., social level engagement(s) to induce both psycho-biologic and bio-psychological effects) approaches (as shown in the figure below). A figure illustration the utilization of bottom-up (biological targeting to incur psychological and social effects), middle-out (i.e., psychological targeting to evoke both biological responses and social manifestations), and top-down (i.e., social level engagement(s) to induce both psycho-biologic and bio-psychological effects) approaches NATO’s cognitive warfare ecosystem is explicit in its call for building practical capability and developing doctrine for operating within it to (1) acknowledge these bio-psychosocial levels and factors of effect, and (2) formulate paradigms for developing more accurate detection, fortified resilience, and directed deterrence and defense. This speaks to the need to appreciate cognitive warfare on a broader scale, and as executable in and across global theatres of operations. The military relevance of such cognitive engagement capabilities is twofold. Offensively, neurotechnologic and AI-enabled tools can be employed to influence adversary decision cycles through disruption of sensemaking, misdirection of confidence, and steered direction of group-level dynamics. Defensively, cognitive engagement can be leveraged to safeguard force readiness and fortify societal resilience against manipulations that seek to disrupt individual and/or collective capabilities through narrative exploitation, stress induction, attentional saturation, demoralization, and/or engineered distrust. Convergence: AI as Accelerant of Cognitive Engagement Cognitive warfare extends into the social substrates of trust, shared epistemic standards, and institutional legitimacy. From a force-development standpoint, AI becomes both threat and countermeasure: the same methods that enable adversary influence can (under current rule-of-law constraints) be employed to support defensive cognitive security (e.g., anomaly detection in influence networks; pattern recognition for coordinated inauthentic behavior; and decision-support for commanders managing narrative risk). Thus, if neuroscience and technologies are the means of “influencing the mind by affecting the brain,” AI is increasingly becoming the means by which to "affect the mind by manipulating the information ecology." Hence, the operational concern is not simply that AI can generate persuasive content, but rather, that AI can be used to: • Micro-segment populations to enable psychographic and behavioral targeting • Optimize narratives in real time and across channels • Automate social amplification (e.g., using bot/hybrid actor swarms) • Create synthetic credibility (e.g., deepfakes, synthetic experts, forged “evidence”) • Exploit cognitive biases, values and vulnerabilities (e.g., salience, fear conditioning, in-group/out-group polarization). …and do so with speed and target-specification on a variety of scales. Thus, the NATO report should be used as a sentinel call to look beyond the European theatre, identify which actors on the global stage possess these capabilities, examine their current programs, projects and potential applications, and acknowledge the clear and present realties of their using extant and emerging S/T in cognitive warfare engagements. Recommendations Given these realities, if NATO’s 2025 Chief Scientist agenda is to be more than an important conceptual marker for the field, I believe it should drive military capability projects that align with how cognitive effects are generated and can be defended against in the current milieu of global power competition. Toward such ends I propose the following recommendations: 1. Develop cognitive indicators and warnings as a standing function, to include enduring fusion cells that integrate neurocognitive and behavioral science, data and cyberscience and technology, and operational intelligence. 2. Instantiate neuro-AI readiness and resilience programs for the force, which entail training, assessment, and protective measures that regard cognition as a mission-critical substrate, and not merely a "soft" add-on. 3. Establish doctrine for cognitive engagement in military domains of operation. Cognitive effects should be integrated into planning alongside cyber, electronic warfare. space, and information activities, given that cognitive outcomes frequently determine whether kinetic engagement becomes tactically effective and strategically successful. 4. Expand ethical-legal frameworks for governance of dual-use neuroS/T and AI. Military forces must operationalize “responsible use” approaches, particularly given that cognitive engagement tools blur traditional lines between persuasion, manipulation, and coercion. This is where prior NATO work on mitigating and responding to cognitive warfare remains relevant; defense surely demands the use of cutting edged science and technology, but equally necessitates guardrails for guidance, governance and response. Conclusion: Cognitive Superiority is Not Optional The NATO report rightly recognizes that the international contest for power advantage is increasingly being engaged through human cognition, collective sensemaking, and societal effect. The convergence of neuroS/T and AI will intensify this reality by enabling precision influence at scale through biological, psychological and socially mediated modulation of human cognition, emotion, behavior and vulnerability. Therefore, I opine that the critical point to be taken from the NATO Chief Scientist’s Report on Cognitive Warfare is that the task at hand is to ensure that initiatives in cognitive engagement become operational capabilities; with measurable indicators, trained forces, partnered resilience, and governance of dual-use S/T in an era where the “battle for the brain” is no longer a metaphor, but becomes a factor in defense planning on the world stage. Citations Giordano J, Forsythe C, Olds J. Neuroscience, neurotechnology and national security: The need for preparedness and an ethics of responsible action. AJOB-Neurosci 1(2): 1-3 (2010). Giordano J, Wurzman R. Neurotechnology as weapons in national intelligence and defense. Synesis: A Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics and Policy 2: 138-151 (2011). Giordano J. The neuroweapons threat. Bull Atomic Sci 72(3): 1-4 (2016). DeFranco JP, DiEuliis D, Giordano J. Redefining neuroweapons: Emerging capabilities in neuroscience and neurotechnology. PRISM 8(3): 48-63 (2019). Giordano J. Chem-bio, data and cyberscience and technology in deterrence operations. HDIAC J 8(1): 26-35 (2024). Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in this essay are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the United States government, Department of War or the National Defense University. Dr. James Giordano Dr. James Giordano is Director of the Center for Disruptive Technology and Future Warfare of the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University. -------------- https://inss.ndu.edu/Research-and-Commentary/View-Publications/Article/4371195/cognitive-warfare-2026-natos-chief-scientist-report-as-sentinel-call-for-operat/ RESEARCH AND COMMENTARY Through its publications INSS provides cutting-edge research, analyses, and innovative solutions on critical national security issues in support of the joint warfighter and Department of War stakeholders. HomeResearch and CommentaryView Publications News | Jan. 6, 2026 Cognitive Warfare 2026: NATO’s Chief Scientist Report as Sentinel Call for Operational Readiness By Dr. James Girodano Strategic Insights The recently released NATO Chief Scientist’s 2025 Report on Cognitive Warfare provides a timely acknowledgment of a strategic reality that contemporary conflict is increasingly behavior-centric, and the decisive terrain is often not geographic but how individuals and groups perceive, interpret, decide, and act. I have had the privilege, honor and pleasure of working on NATO’s initial cognitive warfare studies beginning in 2018, which explicitly emphasized that cognitive warfare is not merely “PSYOPS with better tools.” Indeed, NATO efforts in this space echo our group’s ongoing work that has argued for a more expansive, yet nonetheless realistic view of cognitive warfare as a mix of emerging technologies, influence methods, and adversary exploitation of societal fault lines that can be engaged to shape the conditions under which humans form beliefs, allocate attention, and generate intent. The nature of warfare may remain the same, but operationally I posit that cognitive engagements change three fundamentals of military operations, namely: • The target set expands from discrete platforms or messages to human cognitive and social systems (trust networks, identity narratives, institutional legitimacy). • The battlespace becomes continuous, operating non-kinetically below thresholds of armed conflict, blending strategic competition, hybrid pressure, and wartime maneuvering. • The measure of effectiveness shifts from short-term message penetration to durable changes in cognitive patterns and behavioral dispositions (e.g., risk perception, threat appraisal, civic cohesion, and willingness to support military action). • Increasingly, neurotechnology and artificial intelligence (AI) are becoming dual-use instruments for cognitive engagement to leverage biological, psychological, and social levels of effect, as follows: Biological Level: Manipulating Capacity This level directly targets the nervous system as the focal substrate of thought, emotion and behavior. Neuroscientific techniques and technologies (neuroS/T) can be used to assess and affect individual (and aggregate/group) physiological functions to alter (i.e., disrupt, direct, degrade or improve) cognitive capabilities, mental states, decision-making and actions. Psychological Level: Manipulating Interpretation Here, the focus is upon influencing cognitive appraisal(s), framing, emotions, and the patterns of thought that contribute to and shape individual and collective attitudes, beliefs and judgment. AI-enabled influence (for example, on social and public media) can tailor stimuli to engage individual and group vulnerabilities and volatilities (which may have been previously or co-modulated through the use of neuroS/T to affect susceptibility by altering arousal states or attentional gating). Social Level: Manipulating Cohesion This is the over-arching level for influencing shared narratives, beliefs, institutional legitimacy, and public views, values and activities. Cognitive engagement seeks to fracture cohesion, weaponize identity, and create epistemic chaos. In this light, NATO’s emphasis that the cognitive front is not only military but societal is both accurate and strategically important to recognize. In practice, these levels are not mutually exclusive, but rather can and should be regarded as complementary, reinforcing domains and dimensions of vulnerability, influence, and targetability; utilizing bottom-up (biological targeting to incur psychological and social effects), middle-out (i.e., psychological targeting to evoke both biological responses and social manifestations), and top-down (i.e., social level engagement(s) to induce both psycho-biologic and bio-psychological effects) approaches (as shown in the figure below). A figure illustration the utilization of bottom-up (biological targeting to incur psychological and social effects), middle-out (i.e., psychological targeting to evoke both biological responses and social manifestations), and top-down (i.e., social level engagement(s) to induce both psycho-biologic and bio-psychological effects) approaches NATO’s cognitive warfare ecosystem is explicit in its call for building practical capability and developing doctrine for operating within it to (1) acknowledge these bio-psychosocial levels and factors of effect, and (2) formulate paradigms for developing more accurate detection, fortified resilience, and directed deterrence and defense. This speaks to the need to appreciate cognitive warfare on a broader scale, and as executable in and across global theatres of operations. The military relevance of such cognitive engagement capabilities is twofold. Offensively, neurotechnologic and AI-enabled tools can be employed to influence adversary decision cycles through disruption of sensemaking, misdirection of confidence, and steered direction of group-level dynamics. Defensively, cognitive engagement can be leveraged to safeguard force readiness and fortify societal resilience against manipulations that seek to disrupt individual and/or collective capabilities through narrative exploitation, stress induction, attentional saturation, demoralization, and/or engineered distrust. Convergence: AI as Accelerant of Cognitive Engagement Cognitive warfare extends into the social substrates of trust, shared epistemic standards, and institutional legitimacy. From a force-development standpoint, AI becomes both threat and countermeasure: the same methods that enable adversary influence can (under current rule-of-law constraints) be employed to support defensive cognitive security (e.g., anomaly detection in influence networks; pattern recognition for coordinated inauthentic behavior; and decision-support for commanders managing narrative risk). Thus, if neuroscience and technologies are the means of “influencing the mind by affecting the brain,” AI is increasingly becoming the means by which to "affect the mind by manipulating the information ecology." Hence, the operational concern is not simply that AI can generate persuasive content, but rather, that AI can be used to: • Micro-segment populations to enable psychographic and behavioral targeting • Optimize narratives in real time and across channels • Automate social amplification (e.g., using bot/hybrid actor swarms) • Create synthetic credibility (e.g., deepfakes, synthetic experts, forged “evidence”) • Exploit cognitive biases, values and vulnerabilities (e.g., salience, fear conditioning, in-group/out-group polarization). …and do so with speed and target-specification on a variety of scales. Thus, the NATO report should be used as a sentinel call to look beyond the European theatre, identify which actors on the global stage possess these capabilities, examine their current programs, projects and potential applications, and acknowledge the clear and present realties of their using extant and emerging S/T in cognitive warfare engagements. Recommendations Given these realities, if NATO’s 2025 Chief Scientist agenda is to be more than an important conceptual marker for the field, I believe it should drive military capability projects that align with how cognitive effects are generated and can be defended against in the current milieu of global power competition. Toward such ends I propose the following recommendations: 1. Develop cognitive indicators and warnings as a standing function, to include enduring fusion cells that integrate neurocognitive and behavioral science, data and cyberscience and technology, and operational intelligence. 2. Instantiate neuro-AI readiness and resilience programs for the force, which entail training, assessment, and protective measures that regard cognition as a mission-critical substrate, and not merely a "soft" add-on. 3. Establish doctrine for cognitive engagement in military domains of operation. Cognitive effects should be integrated into planning alongside cyber, electronic warfare. space, and information activities, given that cognitive outcomes frequently determine whether kinetic engagement becomes tactically effective and strategically successful. 4. Expand ethical-legal frameworks for governance of dual-use neuroS/T and AI. Military forces must operationalize “responsible use” approaches, particularly given that cognitive engagement tools blur traditional lines between persuasion, manipulation, and coercion. This is where prior NATO work on mitigating and responding to cognitive warfare remains relevant; defense surely demands the use of cutting edged science and technology, but equally necessitates guardrails for guidance, governance and response. Conclusion: Cognitive Superiority is Not Optional The NATO report rightly recognizes that the international contest for power advantage is increasingly being engaged through human cognition, collective sensemaking, and societal effect. The convergence of neuroS/T and AI will intensify this reality by enabling precision influence at scale through biological, psychological and socially mediated modulation of human cognition, emotion, behavior and vulnerability. Therefore, I opine that the critical point to be taken from the NATO Chief Scientist’s Report on Cognitive Warfare is that the task at hand is to ensure that initiatives in cognitive engagement become operational capabilities; with measurable indicators, trained forces, partnered resilience, and governance of dual-use S/T in an era where the “battle for the brain” is no longer a metaphor, but becomes a factor in defense planning on the world stage. Citations Giordano J, Forsythe C, Olds J. Neuroscience, neurotechnology and national security: The need for preparedness and an ethics of responsible action. AJOB-Neurosci 1(2): 1-3 (2010). Giordano J, Wurzman R. Neurotechnology as weapons in national intelligence and defense. Synesis: A Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics and Policy 2: 138-151 (2011). Giordano J. The neuroweapons threat. Bull Atomic Sci 72(3): 1-4 (2016). DeFranco JP, DiEuliis D, Giordano J. Redefining neuroweapons: Emerging capabilities in neuroscience and neurotechnology. PRISM 8(3): 48-63 (2019). Giordano J. Chem-bio, data and cyberscience and technology in deterrence operations. HDIAC J 8(1): 26-35 (2024). Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in this essay are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the United States government, Department of War or the National Defense University. Dr. James Giordano Dr. James Giordano is Director of the Center for Disruptive Technology and Future Warfare of the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University. --------- https://anr.fr/Project-ANR-22-ASGC-0001 Cognitive Warfare Design Lab – GECKO Submission summary The concept of cognitive warfare stems from the convergence of work on the characteristics, limits and fragilities of individuals, on the one hand, and on social and cultural influences and their manipulation for war purposes, on the other. It is anchored both in a historical reflection on the evolution of the doctrines of disinformation and manipulation stemming from the Cold War and those born from the last two decades of counter-insurgency and hybrid confrontations, as well as in the work on the militarisation of neurosciences. Cognitive warfare, as currently conceived, is based on a number of assumptions related to the cognitive science approach to human cognition. Most research looks at cognition on an individual basis, studying how the subject processes information, listing the cognitive biases involved in errors of judgement in intelligence activities. Even when research looks at collective analysis and decision making, it does so within a narrow framework without taking into account social, cultural and organisational factors. Although cognitive sciences have extended individual cognition to the non-human with the concept of HAT (human-autonomy teaming), they still lack the integration of contextual factors, which the collaboration between the skills of the ENSC (IMS), Inalco (ERTIM and PLIDAM) and the IRSEM aims to explore. Thus, the GECKO project offers a new perspective by exploring cognitive warfare through the prism of collective action and inter-individual collaboration, by considering it as a socio-technical organisation and cognition as an individual but also cultural process that is very largely determined today by information and mass communication technologies. The project proposes the constitution of a tool for exploring cognitive warfare in fictitious crisis situations, involving decision-making or operational actors, both civilian and military, and aimed at operations related to national security. Taking as a hypothesis the creation of a new field of operation centred on the human being, it will be a question of creating a device allowing experts to be placed in a controlled scenario, implementing a tool for detection and situational awareness. It will be intended for awareness-raising, training and practice, allowing both the study for the characterisation, treatment and preparation of different compliant and non-compliant cases. It will also be a place for civilian and military researchers, including engineers in training and doctoral students, working on the subject of cognitive warfare. Project coordination Mathieu Valette (EQUIPE DE RECHERCHE : TEXTES, INFORMATIQUE, MULTILINGUISME) The author of this summary is the project coordinator, who is responsible for the content of this summary. The ANR declines any responsibility as for its contents. Partnership IRSEM Institut de Recherche Stratégique de l'Ecole Militaire ERTIM EQUIPE DE RECHERCHE : TEXTES, INFORMATIQUE, MULTILINGUISME PLIDAM Pluralité des Langues et des Identités : Didactique – Acquisition – Médiations IMS LABORATOIRE D'INTEGRATION DU MATERIAU AU SYSTEME Help of the ANR 299,419 euros Beginning and duration of the scientific project: December 2022 - 36 Months Useful links List of selected projects Permanent link to this summary on the ANR website (ANR-22-ASGC-0001) See the publications in the HAL-ANR portal ------------- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3754967 The International Conference 'Education and Creativity for a Knowledge-Based Society' - Psychology - XIVth Edition The International Conference 'Education and Creativity for a Knowledge-Based Society', ISBN: 978-3-9503145-6-4 199 Pages Posted: 8 Mar 2021 Viorel Iulian Tanase Titu Maiorescu University Iulian Ipate Titu Maiorescu University Ciobanu Alexandra Titu Maiorescu University, Students Titi Paraschiv Titu Maiorescu University; Military Technical Academy; Osterreichish-Rumanischer Akademischer Verein Oana Mateescu Titu Maiorescu University - Faculty of Psychology Petru Craiovan Titu Maiorescu University of Bucharest Dan Postolea Titu Maiorescu University Barbara Craciun Titu Maiorescu University Elena Anghel Stanila Titu Maiorescu University Odette Dimitriu Titu Maiorescu University Brindusa Orasanu Titu Maiorescu University Craciun Eftihita Titu Maiorescu University Camelia Petrescu Titu Maiorescu University Cristian Manea Titu Maiorescu University, Students Manea Mirela Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie Bucuresti Crina Elena Asandei Titu Maiorescu University, Students manea Traian Titu Maiorescu University Paraschiv Ruxandra Victoria Titu Maiorescu University Alina Zaharia Titu Maiorescu University Adela Marinescu Titu Maiorescu University Alexandru Constantin Polytechnic University of Bucharest Octavian Constantin Grigoroiu Military Technical Academy Ţiganescu Viorel Military Technical Academy Costin Ana-Maria Military Technical Academy Dariela Nicolae Titu Maiorescu University, Students Irina Dinescu Titu Maiorescu University, Students Alexandra-Cristina Ichim Titu Maiorescu University, Students Mihaela-Georgeta Marghita Titu Maiorescu University, Students Georgiana Moisa Titu Maiorescu University, Students Corina-Mihaela Tudose Titu Maiorescu University, Students Vasile Dem. Zamfirescu Titu Maiorescu University Simona Reghintovschi Titu Maiorescu University Anamaria Negulescu Titu Maiorescu University, Students Andreea Văduva Titu Maiorescu University, Students Mădălina Giurgescu (Manea) University of Pitesti Ion Chițescu Universitatea Politehnica Bucuresti Alexandru Dinu Universitatea Politehnica Bucuresti Ioana Maria Ruscău Titu Maiorescu University, Students Malvina Roșu Preda Titu Maiorescu University, Students Mirela Turcea Titu Maiorescu University, Students Roxana Vlad Titu Maiorescu University, Students Mihaela Ciurciun Titu Maiorescu University, Students Vasile Daniel Avram Military Technical Academy, Students Ionuț Cătălin Predescu Military Technical Academy, Students Mihail Munteanu Military Technical Academy, Students Alexandru Marin Military Technical Academy, Students Ovidiu Iorga Military Technical Academy, Students Andrei Șchiopu Military Technical Academy, Students Date Written: December 4, 2020 Abstract A collection of multiple articles on psychologys, all of which have been selected for the 2020 edition of The International Conference 'Education and Creativity for a Knowledge-Based Society' - Psychology. Suggested Citation: Tanase, Viorel Iulian and Ipate, Iulian and Alexandra, Ciobanu and Paraschiv, Titi and Paraschiv, Titi and Mateescu, Oana and Craiovan, Petru and Postolea, Dan and Craciun, Barbara and Anghel Stanila, Elena and Dimitriu, Odette and Orasanu, Brindusa and Eftihita, Craciun and Petrescu, Camelia and Manea, Cristian and Mirela, Manea and Asandei, Crina Elena and Traian, manea and Ruxandra Victoria, Paraschiv and Zaharia, Alina and Marinescu, Adela and Constantin, Alexandru and Grigoroiu, Octavian Constantin and Viorel, Ţiganescu and Ana-Maria, Costin and Nicolae, Dariela and Dinescu, Irina and Ichim, Alexandra-Cristina and Marghita, Mihaela-Georgeta and Moisa, Georgiana and Tudose, Corina-Mihaela and Zamfirescu, Vasile Dem. and Reghintovschi, Simona and Negulescu, Anamaria and Văduva, Andreea and Giurgescu (Manea), Mădălina and Chițescu, Ion and Dinu, Alexandru and Ruscău, Ioana Maria and Roșu Preda, Malvina and Turcea, Mirela and Vlad, Roxana and Ciurciun, Mihaela and Avram, Vasile Daniel and Predescu, Ionuț Cătălin and Munteanu, Mihail and Marin, Alexandru and Iorga, Ovidiu and Șchiopu, Andrei, The International Conference 'Education and Creativity for a Knowledge-Based Society' - Psychology - XIVth Edition (December 4, 2020). The International Conference 'Education and Creativity for a Knowledge-Based Society', ISBN: 978-3-9503145-6-4, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3754967 ------------ We addressed how technology has affected the lives of people of four generations; Technology developments have provided faster ways to communicate through instant messaging applications and social media platforms. Older people are able to use new technologies; Because there are so many new technologies, adaptation can seem overwhelming. However, most people, regardless of age, are aware that all these new technologies are designed to make life more beautiful, Telepsychotherapy is the best known form, but this field is vast and also includes access to medical information, coordination of care pathways, prevention and follow-up applications, self-care or online mutual help. In short, everything that can be done with digital technologies to provide mental health care and information can be related to e-mental health; The crisis caused by Coronavirus has forced almost four billion people not to leave their homes, voluntarily or compulsorily; thus people are more prone to stress, anxiety, fear, sadness, frustration, irritability and anger. New technologies have an important role to play in the current situation, helping us to cross this period with dignity; People are aware of the importance of technology in everyday life using technology for almost all important areas - from shopping using online applications, to interacting with others at the same time, online learning platforms - digital school - and many other applications; Instead of feeling overwhelmed, people should embrace technology to discover how they can improve their lives and how they can become an essential part of their daily lives. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3754967 11 REFERENCES 1. Andersson, G., & Titov, N. (2014). Advantages and Limitations of Internet-based Interventions for Common Mental Disorders. World Psychiatric Association; 2. Baumeister, H., Nowoczin, L., Lin, J., Seifferth, H., Seufert, J., Laubner, K., & Ebert, D. (2014). Impact of an acceptance facilitating intervention on diabetes patients' acceptance of Internet-based interventions for depression: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract., 30-39; 3. Blackwell, S. (2015). Positive Imagery-Based Cognitive Bias Modification as a Web-Based Treatment Tool for Depressed Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clinical Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science , 91- 111; 4. Christensen, H., Cuijpers, P., & Reynolds, C. (2016). Changing the Direction of Suicide Prevention Research: A Necessity for True Population Impact. JAMA Psychiatry; 5. Cummings, J., & Bailenson, J. (2016). How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychology, 272-309 6. Hensler, C. (2013). Generation X Goes Global: Mapping a Youth Culture in Motion (Routledge Research in Cultural and Media Studies) 1st Edition. Routledge; 7. Huang, S., & Bailenson, J. (2019). Close Relationships and Virtual Reality. Brain adn Technology, 49-65 8. Lin, C., Lee, C., Lally, D., & Coughlin, J. (2018). Impact of Virtual Reality (VR) Experience; 9. Riek, L. D. (2016). Robotics technology in mental health care. Artificial Intelligence in Behavioral and mental health care; 10. Saeb, S. (2016). The relationship between mobile phone location sensor data 11. Valmaggia, L., Latif, L., Kempton, M., & Rus-Calafell, M. (2016). Virtual Reality in the Psychological Treatment for Mental Health Problems: An Systematic Review of Recent Evidence. Psychiatry research, 189- 195 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3754967 12 CONTRIBUTIONS ON THE IMPACT OF NEUROMARKETING TECHNIQUES ON BUYERS Paraschiv Titi, “Titu Maiorescu” University, Faculty of Psychology, Bucharest Mateescu Oana, “Titu Maiorescu” University, Faculty of Psychology, Bucharest Asandei Crina Elena, “Titu Maiorescu” University, Faculty of Psychology, Bucharest ABSTRACT: In the study we determined the sensory impact that neuromarketing techniques have on buyers, in terms of familiarity with the brand. We examined the differences between the reactions and mental and physiological perceptions of consumers, in relation to the preferred brand, then identified the degree of emotional conditioning towards it, at the level of the five senses. The results of the study signal the power that a brand, well positioned in the market, exerts on consumers. The fundamental hypothesis of neuromarketing is that all thoughts, emotions, actions, consciousness and consciousness are the products of the neural activity of the brain. Keywords: neuromarketing, brand, neuroscience, cognitive processes, consumer, biometrics, sensory stimuli INTRODUCTION The techniques and tools used in neuromarketing allow the study of emotional conditioning towards brands. Consumers often have to choose between products that have similar, if not identical, functionalities, which causes them to stop buying them for their functionality and use value, but according to the experience promised by the strategies. marketing and advertising. In this way, in order to become memorable and condition customers emotionally and cognitively in relation to their products, the brands on the market integrate in promotion affective, sensory, functional, symbolic and experiential attributes. For this reason, the ethics of using neuromarketing methods to subliminally influence consumer experience can be questioned. Each time a person focuses on a concept or idea for more than 50 minutes, the number of connections in the brain is doubled, thus producing physical reactions as a result of interaction with the external environment. All this information is stored in the neocortex and is related to the conscious mind, while generating a feeling or emotion. The process actually causes the body to feel what the mind has already understood. In this way, the