Monkeys Adapt Robot Arm as Their Own

FiReaNGeL writes "Neurobiologists from the Duke University Medical Center are training monkeys to use their brain signals to control a robotic arm; but they are not just learning to manipulate an external device. Rather, "their brain structures are adapting to treat the arm as if it were their own appendage", via a brain-implanted chip. "The finding has profound implications both for understanding the extraordinary adaptability of the primate brain and for the potential clinical success of brain-operated devices to give the handicapped the ability to control their environment", said the researchers. Read the story here with full details."

Comments

Repeat

[wonkavader]

We've looked at this already: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/1 8/2111225&tid=191&tid=14

It's a funding-by-media trick -- it generates buzz, but they've got a switch which moves an arm, and a single neuron controlling the on off. From down, to up. No control. You could also say "Monkey uses mind to start a car!" using the same single neuron to control a remote starter. Or "monkey controls gun!" by putting a solenoid on a trigger. Both would play well, but then you wouldn't get that nice picture of an arm moving.

There's no real science, here, just an application of 30 year old-tech.

Disclaimer: I'm basing this on my general distrust and what I am NOT seeing written here.

Re:Repeat

[Anonymous Coward]

but they've got a switch which moves an arm, and a single neuron controlling the on off.

While it is good to be suspicious of flashy results, you're incorrect in this case. The monkeys achieved two degree-of-freedom control over the velocity of the actuator using a population of their neurons. And another study has demonstrated three degree-of-freedom control in a similar preparation. This is far from a one-bit switch.

Re:Repeat

[dmaduram]

more interesting to me, it could be used as a very high-bandwidth connection between a computer and me.

This has already been done several times, both at a low-bandwidth level (electrodes on the skull, done several years ago), and a high-bandwidth level (implanting an electrode directly in the neocortex, done in 2000)

If you're interested in this stuff, you should check out this journal article - PDF Reprint

Kennedy PR, Bakay RAE, Moore MM, Adams K, Goldwaithe J. 2000. Direct control of a computer from the human central nervous system. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 8:198-202

Here's the abstract, if you don't want to wade through the PDF:

We describe an invasive alternative to externally applied brain-computer interface (BCI) devices. This system requires implantation of a special electrode into the outer layers of the human neocortex. The recorded signals are transmitted to a nearby receiver and processed to drive a cursor on a computer monitor in front of the patient. Our present patient has learned to control the cursor for the production of synthetic speech and typing.

Source Article [PDF Reprint]

[dmaduram]

For those interested, a much more informative description of Schwartz et. al.'s research can be found at his lab paper reprint section (click on on the second title from the top - "Schwartz, A.B.: Cortical neural prostheses, Ann. Rev. Neurosci. 27:487-507, 2004.")

Just to give my two cents, this is cool stuff, but it's not that big of a deal when compared with prior research:

"Investigators have demonstrated the potential of this technology in humans patients with the cone electrode (Kennedy et al. 2000). This electrode is a capillary tube filled with growth factor or peripheral nerve extract. Also in the tube are the exposed ends of two microwires, which act as differential electrodes. Neurites that sprout in re-sponse to the electrode penetration are attracted to the interior of the tube, through which they grow and form synaptic connections to other neurons. The axon is per-manently trapped next to the recording electrode. Although only a few channels of multiunit data were recorded, this activity was used by locked-in ALS patients for communicating with a spelling/letter-board program. One patient used this method for more than a year." -- (Schwartz 503)

Also, it's interesting that the paper notes that "laboratories using CNP suggests that, on average, a chronic electrode implanted in monkey cortex has only a 40% to 60% chance of recording unit activity." (Schwartz 503) -- maybe this is just me, but this percent really needs to go up to at least 95% before it's commercially viable -- it'd really suck to have an ALS patient get a cortical implant stuck in his brain at the tune of $100,000+, and have it break immediately after.