This is slightly old, but I’m going to post it without extensive re-editing–may get another look-through later on.

In a simplified model, there are four primary axes along which cybernetic technology can be categorized. The first is the axis of function, ranging from the restoration of a “lost” function (for example, the use of a hook restoring the function of grasp) to reconfiguration of function (the offloading of memories from our brains onto paper notepads or cellphone SIM cards) to enhancement of preexistent function (the womb-like cockpits built to enhance fighter pilot’s reflexes) to the creation of a new function (the addition of electromagnetic sensory input.)
The second axis is that of proximity, ranging from the object (a cellphone or bluetooth) to the apparatus (a watch) and the prosthetic (an artificial hand or ear) to the transdermal (a cochlear implant or anything else that permanently penetrates the skin) to the implanted (subdermal magnets and pacemakers) to the inhabited (some plane cockpits, exoskeletons, etc.)
The third axis is that of identification, the degree to which somebody feels a piece of technology to be part of themself. This axis is less intuitive or linear than the others–for example, cellphones are objects we keep on our person, daily, for the majority duration of most of our lives, which effect our thought patterns and may well change the fundamental nature of how our memory recall works; yet most people don’t consider the cellphone to be a part of who they are, they don’t identify with it in any meaningful capacity. When a technology, a device, is not identified with, it is often othered or even actively rejected on a conscious level–again, such as you see with the love-hate relationship many people have with cell phones.
Conversely, a fencer may feel their rapier to be an extension of their body–they may only use it sporadically, and certainly don’t generally keep it attached to their body at all times, but it is still pulled into their self-identity, and is often described as feeling like an extension of their arm.
The last significant axis (related to the one immediately former) is duration, the frequency of occasion and length of instance in which an object is in contact with the person. This ranges from objects that are used only sporadically but incur strong feelings of identity (such as exoskeletons or some trade tools) to objects that are separate from the body but used constantly (prosthetics of all types, cell phones, etc) to objects that are attached to the body but for a finite duration (IVs, some subdermal implants, bone-lengthening devices) to objects that are meant to be permanently joined with the body or self (the majority of implants, some transdermal apparatus, etc etc.).
The vast majority of cybernetic technology can be classified or at least located along these four axes; however, none of them are regularly quantized, and many of these traits are subjective. (For example, whether somebody considers an arm prosthesis with inbuilt devices to be an enhancement or a reconfiguration is a deeply personal choice, as is how closely somebody considers any given object to be an extension of the self.) This is messy and only somewhat accurate: personally, I think that’s very reflective of how people consider their own bodies. I would be highly suspicious of any categorization system that claimed to provide both flawless and useful information about how people relate and identify to anything.