Slashdot Mirror
Major Breakthrough in Direct Neural Interface
jd writes "In a major breakthrough, neurologists are reporting that they can decypher neurological impulses into speech with an 80% accuracy. A paralyzed man who is incapable of speech has electrodes implanted in his brain which detect the electrical pulses in the brain relating to speech. These signals are then fed into computers which covert these pulses into signals suitable for speech synthesis. As a biotech marvel, this is astonishing. Depending on the rate of development it is possible to imagine Professor Hawking migrating to this, as it would be immune to any further loss of body movement and would vastly accelerate his ability to talk. On the flip-side, direct brain I/O is also a major step towards William Gibson's Neuromancer and other cyberpunk dark futures."
Electrodes have been implanted in the brain of Eric Ramsay, who has been "locked in" - conscious but paralysed - since a car crash eight years ago.
What do you do for eight years as a locked in? Wouldn't that drive a normal person insane or dull the mind beyond all recognition? Does anyone know about the mental state of these people?
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
My wife was in a massive car accident, a decade ago. She was in a coma for a month, suffered brain injuries, a collapsed lung, shattered arm, cracked eye socket, multiply broken jaw, etc. A national merit scholarship winner before the accident, her parents were told that, if she survived, she'd likely never walk much or be able to look after herself again.
As it happened, she was sufficiently beaten up at the time that she had no concept of how bad her injuries were. She got out of the wheelchair simply because it frustrated her. She went back to working part time simply because she didn't realize she wasn't supposed to be able to. By the time she comprehended what had happened, she'd improved enough that setting impossible goals like "become a personal trainer" weren't quite so impossible. We taught her to read again (yes, even that got messed up) and even managed to get her back in to school - initially only able to pull a 2.0 average but improved each semester.
In her case, she had an amazing recovery. Yet she, herself, says, "If I'm ever like that again, turn me off." She didn't realize how hurt she was and got lucky with recovering before she did. Understanding now, she has absolutely no desire to try that fight again. She'd rather just call it a day.
So, sadly, there's a real likelihood that his first words, upon realizing he can finally communicate, after years of being unable to and stuck in a totally paralyzed body, will be, "Kill me." Probably not ideal to have the family in the room for.
And yes, that entire story was just so I could "drop" that I have a wife in a slashdot post. Cunning, huh?
Would a device like this work on someone who doesn't know how to speak english or better yet a baby that speaks no language at all
The answer is "Yes" (but not the way you intended) and "No."
It would work for a non-English speaker IFF that speaker was trying to speak his native language; what they've detected is the brain's intention to produce a SOUND; so, by extension, the interpretation is producing a phonetic representation of the sounds in the person's head.
It isn't interpreting the concept of the sound (someone isn't thinking of a cat and the word "cat" is produced). It should be possible for someone speaking any language (including a made-up one) to use this system.
For a baby (who has no word associated with the object), it wouldn't provide any use... unless your conjecture is that a baby doesn't speak because the muscles in her throat aren't strong enough to form words, but her brain knows what sounds would be made. Then... sure, it would work. 8)
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
> Would a device like this work on someone who doesn't know how to speak english or better yet a baby that speaks no language at all, if so then we just invented the universal translator, live long and prosper trekkies
Yes it certainly would. The device works by directly picking up the intent of the subject in a global individual-neutral format. That intent is then translated into English by dictionary lookup and standard text-to-speech software. It would be a trivial matter to subsitiute any other language besides English.
As an interesting side-note, since the device directly reads a persons thoughts and intent it can also function as a lie-detector, dream interpreter, and as a therapist.
You sir, have a gift.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
The article says the man is 'locked in', which means that he not only cannot speak, but he has no voluntary movement whatsoever, even blinking eyelids.
There was an article recently in New Scientist about this. One problem doctors studying this field have is that since it is an experimental treatment, they need consent of the patient, and how can they get consent if the patient can't communicate?
With some locked-in patients, they are able to respond based on the acidity of their saliva. They are told to either imagine eating lemons (for yes) or eating milk (for no), and their saliva sympathetically adjusts to their thoughts. Then their saliva is measured. See more here: http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/08/locked_in_with_the_b.html
Sad to say it, but I suspect the first thing the patient will say is "kill me".
I have time to kill on lunch. Let's see...
Right Wrong = 10 letters.
P in Prong = 1
M in rigm = 1 (+1 letter missing)
1 missing = 1/2
So, (10 - 2.5)/10 = 0.75 ~ 80%
Your post above not only meets funny standards, but accolades for careful thought in using relevant and accurate choice of words. Well done, sir, well done!
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
It's not duplicity of thought. You just lack understanding. One does not need a creator to imagine a human spirit. In fact, the idea of a creator adds nothing to the idea of the spirit. It just marks an artificial stopping point in the quest for answers: What did it? Creator did it! What made Creator? Don't go there! Dumb.
Eastern religions have a better word for it: suchness. That is just so, as it is. The idea of spirit relates more to the idea that things are more than the sum of their parts (due to the interaction between the parts, nothing more) than to the idea of some arbitrary creator.
Human rights are just a social construct that may be revoked at any time whether or not there is a Creator. If this were not true, and there were a creator, then society would be perfect. So either there is not creator, and/or rights are just a social construct. The reason they are not revoked more frequently is because they make sense to individuals. You watch my back, I'll watch yours. It's an idea that even wolves and cows comprehend.
The only thing the idea of a creator might do for you is to give you some hope to hold on to when bastards are infringing your rights: at least the big dude in the sky will kick these bastards in the nuts when they die. The fact that adult human beings still hold on to this fantasy when it provides them with nothing but illusionary hope is rather humorous.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I am actually curious about this. How many of you talk in your head? I have noticed that I haven't done it frequently in a few years, these days the thoughts mainly just "happen". It seems to me as if the thoughts "happen" anyway (in an instant), but people talk to themselves to mull them over or just to pass the time. How many of you talk inside your heads, and how often?
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.