<p>Currently, we have developed a range of neurotechnologies to intervene in neurological and psychiatric disorders, with some of these interventions considered reversible. However, the term “reversibility,” although widely used in clinical and research contexts, remains ambiguously defined, and is often applied inconsistently in different contexts, which may pose ethical risks for patients. In fact, reversibility can be classified into three categories: ontological reversibility (including structural, functional, and psychological reversibility), methodological reversibility (including current and future methodological reversibility), and ethical reversibility (including autonomy, well-being, and harm reversibility). However, each of these forms of reversibility has inherent problems when applied in clinical settings. To ensure that patients are fully informed about the reversibility of neurotechnological interventions, we should adopt a perspective of practical reversibility to address this issue, improving the informed consent procedures for neurotechnological interventions, and clarifying the actual needs of patients regarding reversibility in terms of individual conditions, technological consequences, and value assessments.</p>