Introduction
In 2006, at the scientific conference "Man in the face of a Global Challenge" in Kazan, Ramil Garifullin for the first time established nanopsychology as an independent scientific discipline [4][1]. He defined its subject as the study of correlations between nanostructural transformations of the brain and the mental processes generated by these transformations in the "here and now" [5]. The key methodological requirement formulated by Garifullin was as follows: scientific novelty lies not in proving that nanostructural processes affect the psyche, but in the ability to control these processes in the "here and now" mode and at the same time observe how this control changes mental processes [4][5].
Almost two decades have passed. "In 2023, Garifullin published an article in the International Journal of Biomed Research "About the Nanotechnological Approach to The Brain", in which he analyzed the publications that followed his substantiation of nanopsychology [3]. The result of the analysis turned out to be alarming: there are scientific publications that disorient researchers from the real tasks of nanopsychology formulated by Garifullin. In fact, there is a substitution of the subject of nanopsychology [3]. ""Nanopsicología: La psicología del siglo XXI", a Spanish-language book, will be published in 2026, which, according to its publishers, is "the world's first systematic work on nanopsychology" [6]. However, there is no mention of Garifullin and his 2006 work [6].
The purpose of this article is: firstly, to reconstruct the original content of nanopsychology, substantiated by Garifullin in 2006 and developed in subsequent publications; secondly, to show how modern publications replace the subject of this science; thirdly, to analyze the problem of scientific priority and propose ways to protect Garifullin's status as a founder. In addition, it will be shown that modern experimental work with controlled nanoparticles implicitly follows the objectives set by Garifullin in 2006, when he could only speak hypothetically about such nanocontrol.
1. Substantiation of nanopsychology in 2006: subject and method
""In a 2006 paper published in the collection of the Philosophical Society of Tatarstan (pp. 101-106), Garifullin defined nanopsychology as "the science that studies correlations between nanostructural transformations of the brain and the mental processes generated by these nanostructural transformations in the 'here and now'" [4][1]. This definition contains three fundamental points.
The first point is the subject area. Nanopsychology does not study "the psyche in the context of nanotechnology" in a broad sense, but the correlations between specific nanostructural transformations of the brain and specific mental processes [5]. This is a methodologically rigorous formulation that requires the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships, and not just a description of the impact of technology on humans.
The second point is the "here and now" time mode. Garifullin insisted that nanopsychology should study the mental processes generated by nanostructural transformations at the time of their implementation, rather than their long-term consequences [5]. This requirement fundamentally distinguishes nanopsychology from studies of the "impact of nanotechnology on the psyche," which can only record delayed effects.
The third point is management and surveillance. Garifullin emphasized: "The fact that molecular and nanostructural processes in brain structures affect mental processes is not a scientific novelty. Scientific novelty appears when the possibility of controlling these nanostructured brain processes in the "here and now" mode opens up and immediately there is an observation of how this control affects mental processes" [5]. He drew an analogy with the labeled atom method in physics: just as this method allowed to eliminate ambiguity in the interpretation of experimental data, nanopsychology can become a method that bridges the gap between mental and psychophysiological processes [5].
Garifullin identified three main areas of nanopsychology [4][5]:
1. The field of natural nanostructures is mental processes caused by natural processes in the nanostructures of the brain (uncontrolled) and artificial processes controlled by the operator in the "here and now" or lag mode.
2. The field of artificially created nanostructures is mental processes caused by nanostructures embedded in the brain, nervous and neurohumoral systems, controlled or uncontrolled.
3. The field of nanotechnology systems is mental processes caused by the influence of devices, chips, nanochips, nanobots, micro-emitters, microcomputers, coding and decoding microsystems, DNA computers, either embedded in the brain or acting from the outside.
Among the specific problems of nanopsychology listed in 2006 were: the influence of nanoparticles on mental processes; connecting brain structures to global networks; controlling mental processes of individuals with implanted nanochips through a radio network; using artificial nanostructures as tools for studying mental processes; modeling subjective mental reality; nanocorrection of memory, thinking, perception [4].
It is critically important to note that Garifullin in 2006 did not just state the future impact of nanotechnology on the psyche. He set tasks: if the control of nanostructural processes of the brain becomes possible, then what exactly needs to be investigated? How will this control affect perception, memory, thinking, and emotions? How do artificial nanostructures compare with natural ones? What is the nature of the "trigger" nanoprocesses that instantly switch mental states? [4][5]
It is these questions formulated in 2006 that define nanopsychology as a science — the science not of "nanotechnology in general", but of correlations between controlled nanostructural transformations and mental processes.
2. The development of substantiation in 2014: the cognitive-scientific context
The justification of nanopsychology as a new science was not limited to the 2006 publication. In 2014, Garifullin presented the further development of this program at the Seventh Scientific and Practical Conference with international participation "Actual problems of modern cognitive Science" in Ivanovo. His report "Nanopsychology as a new foundation of cognitive science" expanded the conceptual framework of nanopsychology, integrating it into the context of cognitive science [5].
This speech is of fundamental importance for several reasons. First, it demonstrates that the foundation of nanopsychology was not a single act of 2006, but was a consistent research program that has been developing over the years. Secondly, the inclusion of nanopsychology in the cognitive-scientific discourse indicates that Garifullin considered it not as an isolated philosophical speculation, but as a fundamental basis for the revision of cognitive science in the context of the development of nanotechnology. Thirdly, the Ivanovo conference is a Russian academic forum with international participation, which confirms the institutional recognition of the problems of nanopsychology in the scientific community [5].
The publication of the 2014 conference materials is included in the bibliography of Garifullin's 2022 article [5]. This means that the work is recorded in an academic database and can be cited. The date 2014 is much earlier than the appearance of the so-called "new pioneers" of nanopsychology, which further confirms Garifullin's priority.
3. Substitution of the subject of nanopsychology: Garifullin's 2023 analysis
In "About the Nanotechnological Approach to The Brain," Garifullin conducted a retrospective analysis of the publications that followed his founding of nanopsychology in 2023 [3]. He stated the results of the analysis unequivocally: "It has been shown that there are scientific publications that disorient researchers from the real tasks of nanopsychology formulated by us. In fact, there is a substitution of the subject of nanopsychology" [3].
The annotation to the article states: "An analysis of these works has shown that they are only indirectly related to psychology and brain processes and disorient researchers interested in the real directions of nanopsychology put forward by us" [3]. "Garifullin divided nanopsychology into several areas, emphasizing that the first area studies mental processes caused by the influence of artificially created nanostructures that are embedded in the brain, nervous and neurohumoral systems and are controlled from the outside in the "here and now" or laggy conditions [3].
In an earlier Russian-language version of the article (2022), Garifullin elaborated on this idea: "The situation with the substitution of the true subject of nanopsychology is similar to the situation related to nanophysics. Many scientists involved in nanophysics are actually engaged in traditional colloidal chemistry... Real nanophysics is related to controlling the movement of a single molecule (not multiple molecules), and in the "here and now" mode" [5]. "By analogy", genuine nanopsychology is the science of controlling nanostructural processes of the brain in the "here and now" mode and observing the influence of this control on mental processes, and not about "the psyche in the conditions of nanotechnology" [5].
Garifullin directly listed what nanopsychology is reduced to in works that he considers to be a substitute for its subject: "either to the science of the psyche in the context of nanotechnology, or to the sociology of nanogroups, or to research on vibration imaging, or to research on the sense of smell" [5]. According to him, all these areas are only indirectly related to psychology and brain processes [5].
4. The book "Nanopsicología: La psicología del siglo XXI" and the substitution of the subject
"In February 2026, the book "Nanopsicología: La psicología del siglo XXI" by Alberto Luis D'Andrea is published in the publishing house Autores del Mundo SRL (Argentina) [6]. According to the official description of the publisher, the author "presents nanopsychology as a pioneering subdiscipline emerging from the convergence of psychology, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence within NBIC technologies" [6]. ""The book describes the development of psychology and analyzes how modern technological advances allow us to interfere with the mind and brain at levels previously unthinkable," covering "from the study of the impact of nanotechnology on the human psyche to brain-machine interfaces, artificial brains and the capabilities of virtual and/or robotic people" [6].
A comparison of this definition with Garifullin's 2006 definition reveals a systematic substitution of the subject. Garifullin defined nanopsychology as the science of correlations between nanostructural transformations of the brain and mental processes in the "here and now" mode, with an emphasis on management and simultaneous observation [5]. D'Andrea defines it as "the convergence of psychology, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence" — that is, as a thematic field, rather than as a methodologically rigorous discipline with a specific subject [6].
The substitution is as follows: Garifullin's nanopsychology is the science of processes occurring in the nanostructures of the brain and generating mental phenomena that can be controlled and observed. D'Andrea's nanopsychology is the science of the impact of nanotechnology on the psyche, including brain-machine interfaces, artificial brains, and virtual people [6]. The first is a rigorous scientific program with a clear methodological core. The second is a broad interdisciplinary field with no specific subject.
"Moreover,"the statement that nanopsychology was "fragmented" and "scattered in isolated articles" before D'Andrea directly contradicts the fact of Garifullin's 2006 publication, in which nanopsychology was justified as a systematic science with a specific subject, three areas and twenty-four problems [4][5].
5. Recognition of Garifullin's priority in independent academic literature
In September 2025, Jeremy Owen Turner's paper "Molecular Nano Psychology (MNΨ): An Introduction" was published in Zenodo [2]. "In the "Previous works" section, Turner writes: "The earliest published uses of the term "nanopsychology" appeared in theoretical contexts. R. R. Garifullin introduced this concept in 2006, introducing "Nanopsychology as a new science. Nanophilosophy as a new worldview" [2]. Turner, apparently, did not fully familiarize himself with the subject and tasks of nanopsychology as a science, according to R.R. To Garifullin, which are of practical importance: correlation between nanomolecular and mental processes, nanomanagement of mental processes. These works are already underway (see below).
This recognition of Garifullin Turner's theoretical work as an independent researcher is of fundamental importance. It confirms that Garifullin was the first to introduce the term "nanopsychology" into scientific use and to establish it as a scientific discipline. Turner's work was published in Zenodo with a DOI assignment, which makes it cited and verifiable [2]. Turner also includes Garifullin's 2006 work in the list of references [2].
""" In addition, biographical encyclopedias and academic reference books consistently call Garifullin the "founder of nanopsychology" or "one of the developers of nanopsychology" [1]. This confirms the institutional recognition of his role in the creation of a new discipline.
6. Why doesn't official science notice the founder?
Garifullin's disregard by official science has several structural reasons that should be analyzed without conspiracy theory, but also without silence.
The first reason is the publication channel. The 2006 work was published in the collection of the Philosophical Society of Tatarstan, and not in an indexed international journal [4]. Although it is available online ( psyfactor.org , psychology.net.ru ), its visibility for Western researchers who do not read Russian is limited. As Turner notes, Garifullin's work was theoretical, which reduced its citation in empirically oriented neuroscientific circles [2]. Although this is not the case. Garifullin's first work was also of practical importance, indicating the finding of a correlation between nanomolecular and mental processes, as well as the search for opportunities for nanomolecular control of mental processes. These works are already underway (see below). Many experimental articles have been published, implicitly following the large program of nanopsychology as a science, substantiated and published back in 2006 and developed in the articles of R.R. Garifullin, published in 2014 in the collection of the international Scientific Congress "Actual Problems of Modern Cognitive Science", and later in 2023 in the famous American scientific journal (Garifullin R.R. About the Nanotechnological Approach to The Brain // International Journal of Biomed Research. 2023. 2(4). DOI:10.31579/2834-8087/025). This article analyzes the practical experience that is implicitly developing within the framework of nanopsychology as a science, according to R.R. Garifullin.
The second reason is the lack of experimental data in 2006. Garifullin's program was theoretical. There were no experiments with nanoparticles, measurements, or statistics. For the scientific mainstream, focused on publishing in peer-reviewed journals with empirical results, the 2006 theoretical manifesto was not a "citation-worthy event."
The third reason is interdisciplinary marginality. Nanopsychology is located at the intersection of psychology, nanotechnology, neuroscience, and philosophy. """Psychologists" consider it too "nanotechnological," "nanotechnologists" too "psychological," and "neuroscientists" too "philosophical." Such areas are difficult to find recognition in traditional disciplinary structures.
The "Matthew effect" in science is the fourth reason. Works published in prestigious journals by well-known authors are cited much more often than works by unknown authors in little-known publications. Garifullin was not known outside of Kazan in 2006. His work did not enter the circulation of Western science.
However, these structural reasons do not justify ignoring priority. They explain why the 2006 work did not become widely known, but they do not explain why the authors of 2026, who have access to the Internet, do not find it. A search query for "nanopsychology Garifullin" in Google Scholar or Zenodo reveals Turner's work from 2025, which directly points to Garifullin as the first [2]. Ignoring this reference in the 2026 book is not "ignorance", but selective ignorance, which in academic ethics is called unfair citation.
7. Scientific plagiarism and priority protection
The problem of the appropriation of ideas in science has its own specifics. Unlike text plagiarism, attribution of ideas is extremely difficult to prove. However, in Garifullin's case, there is a record: a 2006 publication with the exact date, place of publication, and definition of the term [4].
What can be done to prevent Garifullin from becoming a victim of the "new pioneers"?
First: systematic citation. Every publication using the term "nanopsychology" should contain a reference to Garifullin's 2006 work as the primary source. The 2025 Turner is already doing this [2]. There is no D'Andrea in 2026 [6]. This asymmetry should be corrected in subsequent editions and reviews.
Second: the distinction between the term and the subject. "The use of the term "nanopsychology" does not automatically give the right to define the subject of this science. Garifullin identified the subject in 2006. If D'Andrea defines it differently, he creates another discipline with the same name. This should be explicitly articulated in academic criticism.
Third: increasing the visibility of Garifullin's work. His articles from 2014, 2022 and 2023 have been published in academic journals and repositories [5][3]. These papers contain the development of the 2006 program and should be indexed in Scopus/WoS to increase their citation.
Fourth: institutional fixation of priority. Assigning a DOI to a 2006 publication would create a formal basis for citation in international databases. Garifullin already uses Zenodo for some of his works [5].
8. Controlled nanoparticles: hypothetical tasks of 2006 and their experimental implementation
In 2006, Garifullin formulated the tasks of nanopsychology, which at that time might have seemed futuristic. Today, almost twenty years later, experimental science implements these tasks, often without realizing that it is following the program outlined in 2006.
8.1 Magnetothermal nanoparticles: behavior management in the "here and now" mode
Garifullin posed a problem in 2006: "The problem of the influence of nanoparticles (nanoblockers, nanoscanes, nanochips, and various nanoenergetic structures) on mental processes. It includes... the problem of managing the above processes" [4]. Then it was a hypothesis. Today, this is an experimental fact.
Magnetothermal neuromodulation uses superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles that generate local heat in an alternating magnetic field, activating the thermosensitive TRPV1 channels. Local heating opens the channel, triggering the entry of calcium and the generation of action potentials [7]. The key achievement is the spatial limitation of heating: the temperature increase occurs exclusively near the nanoparticles, without affecting the surrounding tissue [7].
""This is a direct implementation of what Garifullin described in 2006 as "operator-controlled nanostructures in the here and now" [4]. Classical experiments by Chen et al. (2015) demonstrated that stimulation of the ventral region of the tire (VTA) using magnetic nanoparticles and TRPV1 causes the excitation of neurons in the target region and structures receiving excitatory projections [7]. The response latency is 2-3 seconds, which is the "here and now" time scale [5].
In 2025, the development of ferrimagnetic vortex nanowheels (FVIOs) made it possible to achieve even greater efficiency: 20 times less dose, 2.3 times faster latency (2.51 seconds), and, crucially, without genetic modification of animals [8]. "This means that nanocontrol of mental processes becomes possible without prior genetic engineering — closer to the scenario that Garifullin described as "the introduction of externally controlled nanostructures" [4].
8.2 Magnetoelectric nanoparticles: wireless control of deep brain structures
""Garifullin posed the problem in 2006: "The problem of connecting brain structures and nerves to global networks (such as the Internet) through nanostructures" and "The problem of controlling mental processes of individuals with nanochips and other nanostructures implanted in the brain through a global radio network" [4]. Then it was a philosophical extrapolation. Today it is an engineering task.
Magnetoelectric nanoparticles (MenPS) of the Cofe₂o₄@batio₃ type convert a magnetic field into a local electric field that directly depolarizes the neuron membrane. The main advantage is that there is no need for genetic modification [9]. In 2024, magnetoelectric nanodiscs (MENDs) with the Fe₃o₄–cofe₂o₄–batio₃ double–shell architecture were created, which, when inserted into the ventral region of the tire (VTA) or the subthalamic nucleus (STN) of genetically intact mice, allow remote control of reward-related or movement-related behavior [9].
"This is a direct implementation of the problem posed by Garifullin: "the problem of managing the above processes" [4]. The VTA encodes the prediction of rewards and the motivational significance of incentives. """Magnetic activation of this area "creates" or "suppresses" a motivational state without implantable devices. The META-BRAIN project (2026) is conducting the first in vivo experiments on magnetoelectric neuromodulation, stimulating the motor cortex of anesthetized mice and measuring changes in cortical network activity [15].
8.3 Magnetomechanical nanotransductors: memory and perception management
Garifullin posed a problem in 2006: "The problem of creating simulators of encoding brain processes and mental prosthetics... Nanocorrection of memory, thinking, and conduction" [4][5]. Then it was a task for the future. Today is an experimental work.
Magnetomechanical nanotransductors activate mechanosensitive Piezo1 channels by mechanical force. The "m-Torquer" technology uses octahedral magnetic nanoparticles capable of activating Piezo1 with a force of 2-50 pN [10]. This provides minimally invasive stimulation of deep brain structures.
In 2024, a paper was published on a "magnetogenetic toolkit for cell-specific targeting and modulation of brain circuits" that uses nanomagnetic actuators to selectively activate Piezo1 in target neural populations. The technology allows remote and spatiotemporally precise control of deep brain activity, validated in several behavioral models: bidirectional nutrition control, long-term neuromodulation for weight control in obese mice, and wireless control of the social behavior of several mice in the same physical space [10].
This is a direct realization of Garifullin's problems: "The study of the psyche as artificial nanostructures are embedded in vision and perception systems... the introduction of nanostructures (nanobots) that produce harmonics and medicines" [4]. Nutrition, social behavior, and motivation management are the management of basic mental processes through nanostructures.
8.4 Neuroplasticity and cognitive functions: the BDNF pathway and neurogenesis
""" Garifullin posed the problem in 2006: "The problem of using the above artificial nanostructures as tools for creating new methods and techniques for studying mental processes" and "nanocorrection of memory, thinking, perception" [4][5]. These tasks are being solved today.
Studies show that gold nanoparticles activated by visible light and coated with PEG3350 exhibit anxiolytic and antidepressant-like effects, improve working memory and cognitive flexibility, as well as spatial learning in rats [12]. Polydopamine nanoparticles restore cognitive functions in a model of lipopolysaccharide-induced cognitive impairment through targeted dopamine delivery and activation of septo-hippocampal cholinergic circuits [13]. Gold nanoparticles loaded with afzelin improve cognitive and mnestic functions in a model of Alzheimer's disease through modulation of the BDNF-pCREB-pAkt signaling pathway and long-term potentiation [14].
"This is a direct implementation of Garifullin's problems: "nanocorrection of memory, thinking, conduction" [4]. The management of nanostructural processes (neurogenesis, neuroplasticity) and the monitoring of the influence on mental processes (memory, cognitive functions) is the methodological core of nanopsychology, defined in 2006 [5].
8.5 Implicit adherence to Garifullin's tasks
It is critically important to note that none of the experimental papers cites Garifullin 2006. Researchers from MIT, Northwestern University, ETH Zurich, and Sichuan University are all working in a paradigm that is functionally identical to nanopsychology, but they are unaware of their connection to it.
This is not a question of malicious intent. It's a matter of structural invisibility. Garifullin's 2006 paper is not indexed in Scopus/WoS, has not been translated into English in a peer-reviewed journal, and is not cited in reviews on nanoneuromodulation. ""A researcher searching for literature on "wireless brain stimulation with nanoparticles" will not find a 2006 article on "nanopsychology" because the terminology does not match and there is no indexing.
But the tasks are the same. Garifullin raised the following questions in 2006: how to control the nanostructural processes of the brain? How can we observe the influence of this control on mental processes? What are the "triggers" that instantly switch mental states? What is the nature of the "code" that changes the psyche? [4][5]
Modern experiments answer these questions without knowing that they have been posed. They control nanostructural processes (opening of ion channels, local depolarization) and observe mental effects (behavior, motivation, memory). "They"are looking for "triggers" (TRPV1, Piezo1, VTA activation) and "codes" (BDNF signaling, neurogenesis).
This is nanopsychology in action, even if the experimenters don't call it that.
9. Conclusion
Nanopsychology as a science has an exact date of birth: December 22, 2006. Its founder is Ramil Garifullin. This is a fact documented by a publication in the collection of the Philosophical Society of Tatarstan [4], confirmed by an independent academic study in 2025 [2] and developed in a 2014 report at a conference in Ivanovo [5].
In 2006, Garifullin not only defined the subject of a new science. He set tasks: if the control of nanostructural processes of the brain becomes possible, then what exactly needs to be investigated? How will this control affect perception, memory, thinking, and emotions? How do artificial nanostructures compare with natural ones? What is the nature of the "trigger" nanoprocesses that instantly switch mental states? [4][5]
Twenty years later, experimental science implements these tasks in works on magnetothermal neuromodulation [7][8], magnetoelectric control of deep brain structures [9][15], magnetomechanical activation of Piezo1 channels [10], magnetic regulation of neuroplasticity and neurogenesis [12][13][14]. These works implicitly follow the program outlined by Garifullin — even if their authors are not aware of it.
However, scientific priority is not only a historical fact, but also a social process. D'Andrea's 2026 book, claiming the status of "the first systematic work on nanopsychology", replaces the subject of this science, defined by Garifullin [6]. "Instead of """a strict methodological program for the management of nanostructural processes of the brain in the "here and now" mode and monitoring the influence on mental processes", the reader is offered a broad interdisciplinary field of "psychology + nanotechnology + artificial intelligence" [6]. This is exactly what Garifullin warned against in 2023 [3].
Protecting Garifullin's priority is not a matter of personal recognition. This is a matter of preserving the methodological core of nanopsychology as a science, rather than diluting it to just another trendy interdisciplinary label. """Without this core, nanopsychology risks becoming a name for everything related to "nano" and "psyche", that is, to lose the status of science in the strict sense of the word.
Bibliography
[1] Garifullin Ramil Ramzievich // Encyclopedia "Famous scientists". URL: https://famous-scientists.ru/anketa/garifullin-ramil-ramzievich-10306
Abstract: Biographical information. Garifullin R.R. is a candidate of psychological sciences, one of the developers of Russian manipulative psychology and psychotherapy, nanopsychology. It is stated: "Substantiation of the theoretical provisions and tasks of the new science of nanopsychology."
[2] Turner J.O. Molecular Nano Psychology (MNΨ): An Introduction. Zenodo, 2025. URL: https://zenodo.org/records/17189348
Abstract: An independent academic study confirming Garifullin's priority. Direct quote: "The earliest published uses of the term nanopsychology appeared in speculative and philosophical contexts. R. R. Garifullin introduced the concept in 2006." Turner distinguishes ""speculative predecessors"" (Garifullin, Kaluski) and his own "production-oriented" MNΨ program.
[3] Garifullin R.R. About the Nanotechnological Approach to The Brain // International Journal of Biomed Research. 2023. 2(4). DOI:10.31579/2834-8087/025
Abstract: A program-problem article about nanopsychology as a new science. It is shown that there are scientific publications that disorient researchers from the real tasks of nanopsychology. In fact, there is a substitution of the subject of nanopsychology. Nanopsychology is divided into three areas: artificially created controlled nanostructures, uncontrolled nanostructures, and nanotechnology-based systems. Conclusion: thanks to the developed program, it is possible to control nanostructural processes of the brain in the "here and now" mode and monitor the effect on mental processes.
[4] Garifullin R.R. Nanopsychology as a new science. Nanophilosophy as a new worldview // Collection of articles "Man in the face of a global challenge". Philosophical Society of Tatarstan. Kazan, 2006. pp. 101-106
Abstract: The first publication introducing the term "nanopsychology". The subject is determined: correlations between nanostructural transformations of the brain and mental processes in the "here and now" conditions. Three areas have been identified: natural nanostructures (controlled and uncontrolled), artificially created embedded nanostructures, and nanotechnology-based systems. The problems of nanopsychology are formulated, including the influence of nanoparticles on mental processes, connecting the brain to global networks, controlling the psyche through a radio network, and nanocorrecting memory and perception.
[5] Garifullin R.R. Substantiation of nanopsychology as a new science // 5-SHO'BA TEXNOLOGIYALAR VA BARQAROR RIVOJLANISH. Zenodo. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.7239714
Abstract: A re-justification of nanopsychology with an emphasis on the methodological core. "The scientific novelty lies not in proving the effect of nanoprocesses on the psyche, but in the possibility of controlling them in the "here and now" mode with simultaneous observation. An analogy with the labeled atom method. The situation with the substitution of the subject of nanopsychology is similar to the situation in nanophysics. Nanopsychology in the works that replace the subject is reduced either to the science of the psyche in the context of nanotechnology, or to the sociology of nanogroups, or to research on vibration imaging, or to research on the sense of smell.
[6] D'Andrea A.L. Nanopsicología: La psicología del siglo XXI. Autores del Mundo SRL / Editorial Autores de Argentina, 2026. ISBN: 9789878773698
Abstract: A Spanish-language book presenting nanopsychology as a "pioneering subdiscipline" emerging from the convergence of psychology, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence within NBIC technologies. It covers the impact of nanotechnology on the psyche, brain-machine interfaces, artificial brains, virtual and/or robotic people. It does not contain references to Garifullin's 2006 work.
[7] Chen R., Romero G., Christiansen M.G., Mohr A., Anikeeva P. Wireless Magnetothermal Deep Brain Stimulation // Science. 2015. 347(6229). P. 1477–1480
Abstract: The first demonstration of wireless magnetothermal deep brain stimulation in mammals. 22 nm Fe₃o₄ nanoparticles in an alternating magnetic field (500 kHz, 15 kA/m) generate heat that activates TRPV1. 85% of neurons expressing TRPV1 demonstrate synchronous activity for 5 seconds. VTA stimulation triggers the firing of neurons in the target area and structures receiving projections.
[8] Ferrimagnetic Vortex Nanorings Facilitate Efficient and Safe Deep-Brain Magnetothermal Stimulation in Freely Moving Mice // Exploration. 2025. DOI:10.1002/EXP.20240118
Abstract: Development of ferrimagnetic vortex nanocells (FVIOs) for magnetothermal neuromodulation. FVIOs is 20.27 times more effective than SPIOs: the minimum Fe concentration is 51 micrograms/ml versus 1033 micrograms/ml. In the central nucleus of the amygdala, a dose of 0.05 micrograms causes fear with a latency of 2.51 seconds (2.3 times faster than SPIOs). Key achievement: fear is induced in transgenic mice without genetic modification.
[9] Magnetoelectric nanodiscs enable wireless transgene-free neuromodulation // Nature Nanotechnology. 2024. 20. P. 121–131
Abstract: Synthesis of magnetoelectric nanodiscs (MENDs) with FE₃o₄–cofe₂o₄–batio₃ (250 nm) architecture. At a density of 1 microgram/mm2, MENDs-decorated neurons exhibit a sustained response to magnetic stimulation. The model of repetitive subthreshold depolarization explains the observations. Injection into the VTA or STN of genetically intact mice allows remote control of reward-related or movement-related behaviors.
[10] Smart Nanotechnologies for Multimodal Neuromodulation and Brain Interfacing // Advanced Science. 2026. DOI:10.1002/advs.202524300
Abstract: A review of active nanomaterials for neuromodulation. Magnetothermal and magnetomechanical stimulation using nanoparticles allows remote activation of neurons without implantable emitters. In 2024, the magnetogenetic toolkit for cell-specific targeting and modulation of brain circuits has been validated in models of bidirectional nutrition control, long-term neuromodulation for weight control, and wireless social behavior management.
[11] Chernozem R.V. et al. A wireless magnetoelectric-driven strategy to boost nose-to-brain drug delivery with core-shell nanotransducers // Journal of Controlled Release. 2026. 389. 114421
Abstract: Magnetoelectric nanotransductors based on MnFe₂O₄@Ba₀.₈₅Ca₀.₁₅Zr₀.₁Ti₀ .₉o₃ with a high ME response. Under a low-intensity alternating magnetic field (0-50 Hz, 0-30 mT), nanoparticles activate potential-dependent calcium channels in primary neurons and enhance axonal cargo transport from the nasal cavity to the brain, bypassing the blood-brain barrier.
[12] Memory and mood-enhancing neuroprotective effects of visible light photoactivated gold nanoparticles and PEG3350 coating in a rat animal model // IBRO Neuroscience Reports. 2026
Abstract: Gold nanoparticles activated by green light and coated with PEG3350 exhibit anxiolytic and antidepressant-like effects, improve working memory and cognitive flexibility, as well as spatial learning in rats without impaired locomotor activity.
[13] Liu P.M. et al. Polydopamine nanoparticles restore cognition via targeted dopamine delivery and septo-hippocampal cholinergic activation // Theranostics. 2026. 16. P. 3616–3633
Polydopamine nanoparticles restore cognitive functions in a model of lipopolysaccharide-induced cognitive impairment through targeted dopamine delivery and activation of septo-hippocampal cholinergic circuits. Full recovery in Y-maze tests and new object recognition.
[14] Mun J.H. et al. Enhanced Cognitive and Memory Functions via Gold Nanoparticle-Mediated Delivery of Afzelin through Synaptic Modulation Pathways in Alzheimer's Disease Mouse Models // ACS Chemical Neuroscience. 2025. 16(5). P. 826–843
Abstract: Gold nanoparticles loaded with afzelin improve cognitive and mnestic functions in a model of Alzheimer's disease through modulation of the BDNF-pCREB-pAkt signaling pathway, long-term potentiation, and doublecortin expression in the hippocampus.
[15] META-BRAIN conducts first in vivo experiments of magnetoelectric neuromodulation // META-BRAIN. 2026
Abstract: The first in vivo experiments on magnetoelectric neuromodulation within the META-BRAIN project. Stimulation of the motor cortex of anesthetized mice using magnetoelectric nanoparticles (MenPS) and an external magnetic field. Preliminary results: activated MenPS increase network excitability.
Associate Professor of the Department of Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence of KFU, Candidate of Psychological Sciences RAMIL GARIFULLIN
