Urban neurotechnology refers to the integration of brain-sensing tools into everyday urban settings, where mental states are monitored, interpreted and optimised as resources for shaping behaviour, performance and well-being. Cities have rapidly become test beds for these systems, shifting neurotech from controlled clinics to the messiness of workplaces, classrooms and transit systems. Devices such as brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and neural sensors create an ecosystem that senses and responds at the cognitive level. This urbanisation of neurotechnology marks a profound yet still under-explored sociotechnical transformation.

Shanghai, for instance, is increasingly weaving neurotechnology into its smart-city strategy, embedding brain-inspired systems alongside its cutting-edge urban infrastructure. In Yangpu District, the city is developing a 200-metre “Brain-Inspired Avenue”, featuring live-testing environments for start-ups to pilot wearable neurotech within urban life.¹ This initiative complements Shanghai’s investment in brain-computing research through the Shanghai Center for Brain Science and Brain-Inspired Technology, which coordinates universities, hospitals and start-ups to integrate BCI applications in public health, mobility and digital governance.² This positions Shanghai as a test-bed for neuro-enabled public services and interactive urban infrastructure in real-world settings.

Houston, meanwhile, is positioning itself as a strategic centre of “brain capital”, where cognitive health, neurotechnology and economic planning converge. Houston is leveraging its biomedical ecosystem to explore neurotech applications that span early brain development to ageing within public health and education strategies.³ Supported by the OECD-led Neuroscience-Inspired Policy Initiative and the related Brain Capital Alliance, the city is piloting policy frameworks that treat cognitive capacity as a form of soft infrastructure, reflecting a vision where post-COVID recovery, national resilience and economic competitiveness are tied to urban brain health.⁴

Such urban neurotechnology represents a transformation in how we imagine, govern and experience urban life. Cities are becoming cognitive frontiers, where cognition itself becomes legible, governable and marketable.⁵ There are urgent questions about privacy and mental autonomy. Who is collecting neural data and for what purpose? How much control do individuals have over their cognitive information when surrounded by brain sensors? Furthermore, the new landscape raises concerns about deepening social inequalities, as some individuals benefit from these advances while others get left behind, surveilled or manipulated.

In other words, the innovations in progress raise critical governance and ethical dilemmas. The diffusion of neurotechnologies into the urban fabric challenges traditional boundaries between the body, technology and governance. It is not just a matter of new technologies but of new relationships between cognition, infrastructure and authority. This raises profound questions about consent, autonomy, the political economy of mental data and the future of cognitively enabled urban life.

Researchers and policy-makers need to ask critical questions about surveillance, optimisation and the potential for cognitive modulation in urban environments. Anticipating the future of urban neurotechnology requires more than merely tracking technical trends. It needs a systemic research agenda that recognises the city as a space where neurotechnological systems are being implemented and also actively co-shaped by politics, infrastructure and culture.

Long-term research can explore how cities can act as test beds and also as sites of anticipatory governance, where public institutions, civil society and communities co-develop frameworks for ethical use, inclusive innovation and cognitive justice. This includes scenario-building that explores equity, autonomy and unintended consequences, participatory design for neuro-urban experimental applications and collective systems, and public deliberation about acceptable cognitive interventions in everyday life. Without these foresight processes, there is a risk of technological overreach and a loss of democratic control over the neural dimensions of urban life.

Crucially, urban neurotechnology is not unfolding uniformly. Authoritarian, corporate-led and public-interest approaches differ markedly in how cognitive systems are introduced, governed and resisted. In China, city brain experiments in Shanghai and Beijing function as governance experiments, combining predictive surveillance, algorithmic control and marketplaces.⁶ In the US, venture capital drives wearable neurotech for cognitive productivity and consumer feedback.⁷ In Europe, ethical frameworks emphasise privacy and mental sovereignty.⁸ In Africa, researchers are proactively addressing ethical risks before urban neurotech becomes widespread and are calling for co-produced, human-first neurotech innovation in cities.⁹ Future research must map these diverging sociotechnical imaginaries, institutional cultures and geopolitical strategies, recognising that global trajectories are shaped not only by innovation but by governance traditions, social movements and historical legacies. An international comparative lens is essential to avoid reproducing Western-centric or corporate-dominated futures.

GESDA’s anticipatory model highlights the importance of coupling science foresight with diplomatic, ethical and social engagement. Urban neurotechnology is a clear candidate for such co-governance and can be implemented with an international comparative lens.

A key impediment to this is that public understanding of these tools remains limited, and few cities have established participatory pathways for evaluating the deployment of neurotech. Fortunately, there are critical lessons for the emerging field of urban neurotechnology in the way that some European cities, including Amsterdam, Barcelona and Helsinki, have pioneered bottom-up approaches to digital sovereignty by developing suitable governance models. Furthermore, non-profit organisations such as the Dana Foundation are also beginning to play a role in shaping public understanding and ethical foresight around neurotechnology, particularly with an emphasis on equity, mental health and underserved communities.¹⁰ Three key insights stand out:

First, societal control over cognitive data. This emphasises the need for urban neurotechnology to be embedded within frameworks that treat brain data as a civic resource, rather than solely as a commercial asset.

Second, transparency and explainability of neurotechnology. This can be incorporated into neurotech systems from the outset and is particularly vital for cognitive-sensing tools used in schools, transit or workplaces.

Third, participatory governance of neurotechnology. This can include citizen assemblies, ethical councils and co-design practices to ensure that neurotechnology aligns with public values and avoids replicating the extractive logics of smart-city platforms.

Without critical research and anticipatory foresight on neurotechnology, there is a risk that cities could develop into environments optimised for commercial cognitive control rather than for collective human thriving. However, with care, imagination and collective deliberation, they might be directed toward more democratic, inclusive and emancipatory futures.