Slashdot Mirror
Non-Invasive Computer Control Through Brainwaves
mikael writes "An article on the BBC website is reporting that U.S. scientists have managed to develop a 'thinking cap' which allows a computer to receive commands from the electrical activity of a person's brain alone. Comprised of 64 electrodes, this cap allowed two users to control a cursor through pure thought alone, rather than through eye movements or other physical gestures." Unlike some previous efforts, this one doesn't require anything to be implanted in your brain.
could this be the first actual useful tinfoil hat?
While I think this is wonderful for people who lack mobility or the use of their limbs, I for one, can't see this kind of tech gaining much ground for everyday use.
One of the primary reasons for this is the sensation of tactile feed-back you get from using controllers that require physical interaction. You can feel the mouse scraping against your desk as you move it back and forth. You can feel the microswitches 'catching' when pushing the buttons. You can feel the keyboard keys 'click' into place as the latex compression switches underneath connect.
Remember all the 'touch sensitive' microwaves that came out in the 80's and early 90s? Notice how all the buttons now at least provide some semblance of movement when you touch them, even if it's a small amount?
Even if this tech becomes cheap and wide-spread, there's just no replacing the touch-sensation inherent with using mechanical input devices.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Imagine a factory workforce of trained animals (pigs? Dogs?) using this sort of technology; they might be able to handle problems a bit too difficult for a an actual manufacturing robot to handle.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
It is not outside the realm of possibility, however, as Carl Sagan was fond of saying "Extrodinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Those who claim to have extra sensory perception (ESP) have consistently failed to substatiate those claims when scrutinized with truly scientific methods.
It's a hell of a lot more difficult to believe.
Putting electrodes right next to the brain and using computational power to detect the VERY faint electrical signals within the brain is worlds and worlds apart from someone being able to pick up these electrical signals from the span of -- let's say two feet away to be fair -- THROUGH THE AIR and having it penetrate their skull, and then being able to interpret these electrical signals into meaningful thoughts. Keep in mind that since every mind is different, the electrical signals in one brain that signify a certain thought -- let's say something simple such as "I like cheese." can be fairly different from one person to the next because of the way the synapses are linked and pulse their electrochemical signals to make up said thought. I consider this to be an even greater obstacle than the electrical signals from the brain going through the air. The electrical signals to move a cursor are so much simpler than the simplest of thoughts (I like cheese).
Actually I'm rather glad that people like yourself and the scientific community in general rejects psychic ability, because it means you'll leave those who possess it alone. For, if the scientific community ever came around to accepting it as reality, they would wish to dissect the brains of those with the ability and keeping them in labs for the rest of their lives running experiments. So three cheers for the dominant paradigm that is against psychic ability.
This is totally rediculous! If there were any validity to the claims of psychics, there would be intense scientific interest but no one would be deprived of thier life and liberty over it. The truth is, most psychics have such muddled thinking processes, they cant understand the basics of the scientific method and therefore dismiss it out of hand. Check out randi.org and if you do have psychic powers, collect your million dollars.
Tell that to mr. Steven Hawking and see if he's amused. To us this may be little more than a toy, but for some disabled it may be the only way to control a computer, perhaps even the only effective way to communicate with their environment.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
This obviates implications that go far beyond the simple control of gadgets. Helping to correct ADD with this approach illustrates the effect that the brain doesn't just adapt; it actually changes its physical structure as it learns this new behavior. Our brains have specialized uses for specific areas and groups of cells. What happens to someone who uses one of these frequently, with one or more of the electrodes placed over a spot that is involved in some unrelated function? How will it change you when you grow connections from voluntary motor functions right into your pituitary gland? You may inadvertently throw 50 or more hormone and endocrine systems WAY out of whack. OTOH, IF the designers of the sensor cap pay attention to the impact long term use will have, high resolution biofeedback tied to the reward system of a game can be powerful. It may be possible to enhance neural growth in valuable ways. When an adult is learning a new language, there is a point when they switch from mentally translating to/from a language they know to actually thinking in the new language. This is a discernible change in which sections of the brain are involved before and after this point of fluency has been attained. This sensor cap could help facilitate that change. Personally, I'd like it to teach me to hold the same brain patterns as a meditating Zen master. The best ones always look so happy.
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
Getting electrical signals to OR from the brain through an intact skull is going to be a lossy process. In the case of getting signals out, this is apparently manageable. But as for getting signals IN, it's not going to work -- this way at least. This doesn't rule out some much more precise (and much more advanced) tech in the future, but this isn't going to work for making zombies.
Besides, is drilling a hole in the head of your zombie really THAT bad?
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Carl Sagan was a great guy and all, but you seem to not understand the basics of the scientific method.
The scientific method is a process for proving something as definitely untrue or possibly true. You observe a phenomenon, form a hypothesis that you believe explains this phenomenon, use that hypothesis to predict the outcome of experiments designed to recreate this phenomenon with a minimum of variables, perform experiments designed to see if your prediction is correct, and thats it.
At no time is anything "extraordinary" in the scientific method. Lets say that we observe that a person is able to guess what is written on a card with uncanny accuracy. We produce a hypothesis that this person is able to predict the outcome of selecting a random card. We predict that if we perform an experiment consisting of shuffling a deck of cards, then asking for the name of the top card, then drawing the card to see if it matches, then shuffling the deck again, that this person will name the card correctly 100% of the time.
Then we perform the experiment, and either our predictions are right or our predictions and hypothesis are wrong. Nothing "extraordinary" happens in this process because to the scientific method, everything is either false or maybe true.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The thing is, using an EEG for a "thinking cap" is problematic due to EEG resolution. You can't come close to individual neurons - you can only grab "regions" of the brain. Training the brain to activate entire regions is a harder task than training it to activate various neurons. There are severe limits to this sort of technology as a consequence.
:P
It seems to me that if we want true noninvasive thought reading, we're going to need to use some kind of stimulated emission scanning method to determine firing states of individual neurons. Of course, that's easier said than done.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
So what exactly goes through the person's mind when they are moving the cursor. Do they just think "Left" and "Right" etc. Or do they simply have to look in the direction they want the cursor to go? It'd be interesting to try it out. It would bring me one step closer to utilizing the power of the force. I would assume these thoughts would be somewhat unique and require each person to train the device. For example the screen would show a mouse moving to the left and record your thoughts. Then maybe say think about moving the mouse to the left and record that. Do it a few hundred different ways and now we know what you're thinking about when you want the mouse to move left.
Um, no. Part of the scientific method is to perform experiments in which measurable results are observed in the real world in a repeatable fashion.
Why these results occur is often explained by a theory, which apparently is what you refer to above. However, why ESP works would be a strictly secondary issue alongside it's actual existence, if observed. Fairly simple experiments should be able to demonstrate telepathy if it exists - see the famous Duke University experiments for example.
I hope that cleared things up a bit for you.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Actually, the firing of individual neuron is not nearly as interesting as the pattern in which large groups fire. If you know the transform equation, you can derive what the whole thing is doing by sampling from a few key points.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
We don't know what conciousness is made of. Thus we do not know its true limitations. And that's not voodoo talking. That's the scientific community.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
That's part of the problem. We don't want to know what the "whole thing" is doing. You can tell by looking at an EEF if a person is lying or whatnot. But you can't tell that they're lying about strawberries. "Strawberries" are distributed in a fine-level firing pattern for which you need to be able to monitor individual neurons.
We don't want their mouse to move up when they think creatively, and down when they become tired, and right when they become aggressive, etc. We want it to move on individual thoughts, not aggregates. Trying to teach people to move things by aggregates is far more difficult.
Note that I said "distributed". There is no "strawberry" neuron; however, by monitoring a single neuron in the right region, you can detect patterns that correspond to thoughts of strawberries.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.