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."
The subject turns out to have Tourettes syndrome?
OI! [redacted] will you [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] make me a [redacted][redacted][redacted] cup of [redacted] coffee?
Brain obscenity filters for teh wins....
They have hooked up to 41 neurons and:
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
"Beeeeeep."
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
What drives the advances of the last couple decades?
Two desires:
1. To restore Stephen Hawking's physical body to its former fully-functional form.
2. To turn Stephen Hawking into a mobile, indestructible cyborg of incomprehensible power.
In the next few weeks, a computer will start the task of translating his thoughts into sounds.
"We hope it will be a breakthrough," says Joe Wright of Neural Signals, which has helped develop the technology. While this is indeed promising, and I hope that this 'unlocks' this poor fellow, this 'unlocking' has not happened yet. Hopefully, when they are able to decipher these signals, he's not saying, "Kill me" over and over again.
I'm guessing the 80% comes from the fact that this is an issue of the linear separability of signals. Its generally hard to get reliable sensitivity/specificity measures over this that anyone is going to take seriously.
Sensitivity = percentage number of correct identifications
Specificity = corresponding percentage of incorrect identifications at each measured sensitivity.
Probably they can get up to 90%, but from experience I would say the rate of false positives at this sensitivity likely is moving towards exponential increase. It's better to stop at 80%, at least when something is in the early stages.
This is just guessing of course, I have no understanding of their research, but going from my own work on non linearly separable sets, I'd say this is what's happening.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diving_Bell_and_the_Butterfly
he could blink. that's it. yes or no. and with that ability, letter by letter, he wrote a book (with the help of some very patient nurses/ assistants)
it's coming out as a movie soon too i think
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I believe Antonio Damasio addresses this question in one of his books. Apparently, a fortunate side-effect of this condition is it impairs the part of your brain that would normally find this horrific and intolerable and leaves you with a weird sense of acceptance and well-being (IIRC). Otherwise, I guess you just blink a lot and hope they keep the feeding tube hooked up.
Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39133
"With the new exoskeleton, Stephen will be able to safely handle radioactive isotopes in the high-radiation area of the new supercollider particle accelerator. And his new robo-arms are capable of ripping open enemy tanks like they were nutshells,"
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?
Subject's first words? "Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all."
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
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".
For those curious, this speech prosthesis research was presented in a number of posters at the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) conference a couple weeks ago. Their six SfN posters can be found on their website here, covering topics like the circuitry they developed, Bayesian signal analysis, and so forth:
http://migrate.speechprosthesis.org/DNN2/SpeechProsthesisHome/tabid/52/Default.aspx
There's also a nice blog entry on this over at Neurophilosophy:
http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/11/speech_prosthesis.php
Remember, it's only 80% accurate. It may be more like "rigm!" or "prong!"
The majority of Western values do not trace their roots to any of the Middle Eastern religions. They come from other places, such as Greek philosophers.
In fact, the philosophical foundations of the US are in many ways opposite to the so-called Christian values. Cruel and unusual punishment, for example, is condoned--actually commanded--by the Christian god. Slavery, and the belief that all men are NOT created equal, is a common theme in the Bible.
The statesmen/philosophers who founded this country may have been Christian, but the documents they wrote to found this country were quite the opposite.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
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.
"Frist wrods!!"
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.