Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Controlling Robots with the Mind

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the clango-and-company dept.

loucura! writes "Scientific American has a fairly technical article on the real-time control of robotic limbs using recorded neuron patterns. The researcher's macaque has simultaneously controlled two robotic arms in addition to its own arm motion. The amazing thing? One of the arms was 600 miles away. So, they transmitted and translated the "commands" into motion in less than 300 milliseconds!" It's still a long ways off from helping the disabled or making a Dr. Octopus suit, but the potential uses are pretty cool.

7 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. You're kidding me, right?! by ZigMonty · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The amazing thing? One of the arms was 600 miles away.

    No, the amazing thing was that they successfully decoded the neural impulses of the monkey's motor cortex and generated commands that drove a robotic arm in sync with the monkey's arm.

    Who gives a shit if they also sent those signals 600 miles away? Let me introduce you to something called the Internet...

    1. Re:You're kidding me, right?! by theRhinoceros · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Later mathematical analyses revealed that the accuracy of the robot movements was roughly proportional to the number of neurons recorded, but this linear relation began to taper off as the number increased. By sampling 100 neurons we could create robot hand trajectories that were about 70 percent similar to those the monkeys produced. Further analysis estimated that to achieve 95 percent accuracy in the prediction of one-dimensional hand movements, as few as 500 to 700 neurons would suffice, depending on which brain regions we sampled. We are now calculating the number of neurons that would be needed for highly accurate three-dimensional movements. We suspect the total will again be in the hundreds, not thousands.

      This part amazes me above all the other facts in the article: 100 neurons was all it took to get ~70% similarity in action. That seems (at least to me) to be an incredibly small number and says a great deal about signal redundancy in the human brain. Cool.

    2. Re:You're kidding me, right?! by ZigMonty · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yep.

      Another thing that amazed me was the adaptability that the animals showed. I am really starting to think that we greatly underestimate their intelligence. It reminds me of the treatment of immigrants: they can't speak English, therefore they are stupid. I personally can't detect or understand the scent signals that many animals use. With the huge amount of redundancy apparently in the brain, is comparing brain size all that accurate? Maybe we just have more redundancy than other primates and our technological progress is solely due to the sophisticated languages and writing systems we have developed. I still don't believe that yet, but I think the perceived differences between us and other higher level animals will shrink as we learn more.

      Of course I'm just a layman who happens to have an interest in this topic.

    3. Re:You're kidding me, right?! by Illserve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Apes are certainly physiologically equipped to build their own society. They have the digits to construct things, they have the basic insights into using tools and they have very rudimentary language capabilities.

      They're just too stupid.

      The ability to adapt in impressive ways is just the way the brain is wired up and says little about their intelligence. Even rats often come up with impressive tricks to shortcut their way to a reward that the experimenters hadn't thought of. It doesn't make the rats sentient or smarter than the scientist, it just means they are very efficient at picking up correlations in the environment in the same way a computer might if it were designed to do so.

      What sets us apart is our language and sentience. It is not a mundane detail, nor is it something that can be taught to apes at a better than 4 year old level.

      Now, you can argue that it's wrong to experiment on them, I'm not defending or proposing animal experimentation, I'm just stating a fact, on the scale of humans, with or without language, apes are just plain stupid.

      Remove humans from earth and fast forward 5 million years and chimps could very likely evolve into a human-like species (again), but they're nowhere close yet.

      And yes, it's legitimate to compare brain volume. Brain volume allows manual coordination, executive decision making, memory, image processing. Discounting brain volume puts you dangerously close to separating mind from brain, and if you want to go down that road, I surrender.

  2. The loop isn't closed yet... by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At the current time, all they are doing with the robot arms is ape-ing (pun intended) the motion of the monkey's arm - the monkey is NOT using the robot arms to accomplish tasks. Rather, as the monkey uses it own arm to accomplish tasks, the robot arms are making the same motions. The monkey is no more "controlling" two arms in addition to her own than I would be controlling two computers just because I had VNC displaying the same thing on both computers.

    In other experiments the researchers HAVE closed the loop, by using the brain activity to control a cursor on a screen the monkey can see. Thus, the control loop is closed: Screen feeds brain feeds computer feeds screen.

    But until they can close the loop controlling the arm, by providing some form of tactile feedback, the system isn't very useful. That is their next step - closing the loop by stimulating the monkey's skin in proportion to the force the arm is experiencing.

    Now, if they can combine this research with the work being done on rats to stimulate the sensation nerves, then they may have something that can help paraplegics. And given how plastic the brain is - how good the brain is at adapting to its feedback, then there is a good chance we might be able to make useful direct brain controlled limbs.

    --
    www.eFax.com are spammers
  3. /. time to posting TWO YEARS? by skinfitz · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the article: In the two years since that day,...

    The incident in question happened two years ago - I guess I'm not the only one who submits articles here only to see them "pending" for a long time. But I'm not bitter.

  4. Re:600 miles, who cares? by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't understand the fascination with the 600 mile separation. The people who need to control things directly with their neurons are going to be much more interested in manipulating their immediate environment.

    Vacationing parents might care.

    "Dear, my mind nanny is showing that our little Johnny is thinking about throwing a party now that we're away"

    "We'll see about that!" (holds fingers to temples). 600 miles away, thwap!. "That'll show him!"

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid