I will judge this claim primarily on wording and secondarily on my perception of the author's intent. Based on those criteria, I interpret the wording and intent of the claim to mean the following:
An existing, artificial, device can detect the information flow and transformations within the human mind. Detecting electrochemical activity is not sufficient; the device must identify the information that is being signaled and transformed.
Detecting and interpreting the effect of the mind on body systems outside the skull, for example detecting subvocalizations or increased perspiration, does not satisfy the claim.
The invasiveness of the device is not an issue. That is, the presence or absence of probes into the skull does not affect the claim.
The device can identify most of a sentence that a subject has in mind. That is, if the subject is thinking "I wish I had a green apple.", the machine will enable a researcher to identify most of the sentence. A positive claim requires positive results on a satisfactory experiment. Such an experiment has the following attributes:
Note that the claim is specific to the recognition of sentences, and does not address the recognition of concepts. A device that can infer what a subject will do, but not what the subject will say does not satisfy the claim.
More scientists assert that the device is effective in achieving points one and two of the claim than assert the device is not effective. The scientists making assertions are the authors of all relevant peer-reviewed articles published within an arbitrary four-year period containing at least five articles.
The ethics of the invention or use of the device are not an issue. That is, disapproval of the majority of scientists of the use of the device does not affect the claim.
In the event that both wording and intent are ambiguous, I will look for a solution which follows IF/FX precedent insofar as such precedent is apparent to me and applicable to the claim.