Nerve-tapping Neckband Allows 'Telepathic' Chat

ZonkerWilliam writes "Newscientist has an interesting article on tapping the nerve impulses going from the brain to the vocal chords, allowing for 'Voiceless' phone calls. "With careful training a person can send nerve signals to their vocal cords without making a sound. These signals are picked up by the neckband and relayed wirelessly to a computer that converts them into words spoken by a computerized voice." It's not quite telepathy, but it's pretty close."

Comments

Frosty Poophole allows telepathic crap

[Anonymous Coward]

What more needs to be said? Telepathic crap, people! Isn't that awesome?

Wireless, eh?

[Secret Rabbit]

Isn't there a reason why DefCon doesn't have wireless mic's at there event?

Telepathy

[the brown guy]

" It's not quite telepathy, but it's pretty close." I though telepathy was when you could transmit or interpret one's thoughts. These guys are talking about interpreting what one is saying. I am way baked.

Re:Telepathy

[logixoul]

Actually, they are talking about interpreting what one is trying to say.

Re:Telepathy

[rolfc]

Actually, they are talking about wiretapping and then interpreting what one is trying to say or are saying.

Re:Telepathy

[WeeLad]

- Actually, they are talking about interpreting what one is trying to say.
- Actually, they are talking about wiretapping and then interpreting what one is trying to say or are saying.

Seeing as how there's so much dispute over the meaning of a thought when explicitly written out, I don't hold much hope that they'll be able to interpret anything.

Re:Telepathy

[spun]

This isn't determining the meaning of a thought, it's the meaning of a vocal nerve impulse. Meaning, if someone who didn't speak English was taught to sing the Star Spangled Banner, this thing would be able to determine what words they were singing, even though they didn't know what they were. Previous experiments have shown that (for instance) anyone subvocalizing an 'aaaaa' sound makes the same recognizable nerve impulses.

Re:Telepathy

[WeeLad]

The quote at the bottom of my slashdot page seemed very appropriate to your point: "Sight is a faculty; seeing is an art."

Re:Telepathy

[ILuvRamen]

well this actually wouldn't work like they said. It wouldn't work at all because once the signal is en route to your vocal cords, you're going to say it. It's an order to move your muscles. There's no avoiding saying it unless your brain very quickly sends a "cancel" signal before they actually start vibrating. But if you got used to keep sending stop and go signals so it was silent, it would vocalize the really stupid stuff that you almost say but then decide not to. So it would probably end up saying what you're thinking some of the time instead of what you'd actually say, but only the stupid, offensive stuff you stop yourself from saying at the last second. Pretty dumb invention. Oh and did I mention it wouldn't work at all anyway? These people have no idea how speech even works. People automatically alter the pitch and inflection using their mouth. If you just take what the vocal cords are producing, it would be nonsensical noise. Like a third of all letter sounds for example use the same vocal cord frequency and pattern but are altered on the way out by your mouth and tongue. This idea will never work.

Re:Telepathy

[dancpsu]

You seriously don't understand how this works. When you think about doing something, like riding a bike or throwing a baseball, signals get sent to your muscles that would accomplish the task. Why don't you do everything you think about then? Because these signals are much too weak to actually trigger the muscles.

What is ingenious is applying this to word-thoughts. When you read or write or think about something in words, there are these same signals being sent to your vocal cords. They aren't strong enough to move a muscle, but they can be detected by sensitive enough electrodes. You won't even get the Ender's Game style jaw movement, because there is no movement. Did you move your jaw, tongue, or lips while reading this? Of course not. But this collar can pick up every word.

The difficulty is though, that while there is enough information to make out what a person is saying, it doesn't get every muscle you move, so a neural network has to translate the nerve impulses back into easy to understand speech.

Theoretically, a whole body-suit could be made with these sensors and not just interpret voice thoughts, but action-thoughts as well. You could control a character in a video game just by thinking about what you want it to do, and it could match your every thought-move, muscle by muscle.

Ventriloquism

[nick_davison]

Speaking without moving your lips is generally ventriloquism, not telepathy.

Granted, telling off color jokes with disturbing old man/child connotations doesn't sound quite as cool as reading minds and joining the X-Men. Still, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck without moving its bill, it's still a ventriloquist duck and not a telepath.

Re:Ventriloquism

[jd]

Still, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck without moving its bill, it's still a ventriloquist duck

Keith and Orville are still touring?

Re:Ventriloquism

[alxkit]

careful now, it just may be a platypus.

Re:Ventriloquism

[thedrx]

Ventriloquism is the ability to 'talk with your stomach'. I never saw any ventriloquist do their stuff over 1000s of miles, either.

Re:Ventriloquism

[DeadDecoy]

Yes but there's a big difference between ventriloquism and the content in the main post. In ventriloquism you're still vocalizing the words while giving the illusion that you're not. In this case you are not making vocal sounds but rather, sending neuron signals to a computer to do the talking for you. It's a hell of a lot closer to telepathy than you might think.

Re:Ventriloquism

[jamesh]

Still, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck without moving its bill, it's still a ventriloquist duck and not a telepath.

And I for one welcome our non-telepathic ventriloquist duck overlords.

Re:Ventriloquism

[Fred_A]

Yes but there's a big difference between ventriloquism and the content in the main post. In ventriloquism you're still vocalizing the words while giving the illusion that you're not. In this case you are not making vocal sounds but rather, sending neuron signals to a computer to do the talking for you. It's a hell of a lot closer to telepathy than you might think. Like the GP, I don't see assisted wireless ventriloquism as being any closet to telepathy than Hawking's rig is. Easier to use and carry around, certainly, but that's about it. It doesn't read sounds, it's another interface to drive a speech synthesizer. It's interesting because it could be a much more natural one, although the "training required" bit is problematic but we can probably expect that to get better. And that non-invasive hands-free interface can of course potentially be used to drive lots of other things.

Re:Ventriloquism

[xSauronx]

couple this with the tech that can send directional sound and you could have some fun freaking people out :)

Re:Ventriloquism

[Gerzel]

Try YouTube.

Re:Ventriloquism

[cp.tar]

It's interesting because it could be a much more natural one, although the "training required" bit is problematic but we can probably expect that to get better.

As any tool, it needs to be trained with to use properly.

Most of our computer troubles are PEBKAC, i.e. untrained users.
"Easy to use" doesn't have to mean (and shouldn't be supposed to mean) "easy to use the very first time you use it with no training whatsoever". That's intuitive.
Notepad is intuitive; vi is easy to use. Once you learn to use it, of course.

Re:Ventriloquism

[edittard]

News just in: some modern English words have a different meaning than a literal translation of their Greek and/or Latin components would imply.

Re:Ventriloquism

[Auz]

It's a hell of a lot closer to telepathy than you might think.

Doesn't appear to be any closer to telepathy than normal speech and only the headline (which was probably written by a sub-editor rather than the author [if it isn't simply a re-cycled press release in the first place]) makes any mention of telepathy anyway.

Re:Ventriloquism

[joaommp]

Try Jeff Dunham. I like Achmed.

Re:Ventriloquism

[somersault]

Damnit, you mean when I wanted to say that I love working with children on my pre-school assistant application form, I shouldn't have written 'paedophile' as one of my good features?

Re:Ventriloquism

[d3ac0n]

I KEEEEL YOU! :)

Re:Ventriloquism

[Maximum Prophet]

My telepathic voiceless overlords can beat up your non-telepathic ventriloquist duck overlords.

Re:Ventriloquism

[Zaatxe]

I like Achmed.

So you are siding with the terrosts? Why do you hate America?

Re:Ventriloquism

[quietus7]

Isn't this more 'subvocalizing' like we see in many a science fiction novel? Speaker of the Dead comes to mind. ...this isn't telepathy. Telepathy is broadcasting those neural signals into the ether.

Re:Ventriloquism

[Oligonicella]

Except there's no "inner-ear receiver". Also, telepathy wouldn't be screwed up by a nearby transmitter. No, not telepathy, which is defined as "communication between minds by some means other than sensory perception".

Re:Ventriloquism

[DeadDecoy]

Erm, "training" probably has a specific definition in this context. It doesn't mean helping the user use the tool but really helping the computer to interpret the neuron signals. It's probably some machine learning process where you have some neural net or support vector machine that maps neuron signal patterns to words. Training involves giving the computer a model, or prior probability distribution, and feeding it new examples from the specific user such that it is more accurate in its task.

Re:Ventriloquism

[DeadDecoy]

Ya but doesn't Hawking still have to type his words in? I think before we delve into this argument, we should have a better definition of telepathy. Mine is that the system doesn't use a physical means of input but instead transmits the brain's thought patterns more directly. Vocal speech and hand written messages still use physical artifacts while this may bypass all physical artifacts.
Though, I suppose you could argue that it is a physical artifact in itself, which is why a better definition of telepathy is needed.

Re:Ventriloquism

[Mista2]

Just think of the cool applications for this kind of tech: Divers with regulators in the mouths could still communicate with their dive ship. People with trichiotamies or intubated patients (please excuse the spelling) could still talk to their doctors. Those with motor-neuron disease could use this to train other parts of their nervous system to act as their voice.

Re:Ventriloquism

[AP31R0N]

Wonder why they modded your insightful post as funny. It's funny, but mostly insightful. This is ventriloquism. If it could send the data into someone else's head, THAT would be mind reading.

Throat mikes?

[TubeSteak]

roughly transcribed by me:

"One of them, that we're developing is a usage scenario that we call 'the smartest man in the room'. We capture the activity that a person wants to say and translate that into speech and use that speech to query search engines." Wouldn't a throat mic be easier to use? No specialized training required?

Re:Throat mikes?

[nacturation]

Wouldn't a throat mic be easier to use? No specialized training required? Ability to use vocal chords required. Otherwise, Stephen Hawking would have been using one of those long ago.

Re:Throat mikes?

[Handlarn]

I hope they don't show the querys on a projector or anything, that could be somewhat distracting when there's bound to be a few "fucking idiot", "asshole" and "nice rack" searches.

Oooh! Google image search!

Re:Throat mikes?

[cheater512]

I believe these also require the vocal chords as well.
At the very minimum, your brain would have to be wired up to use them.

Re:Throat mikes?

[kcelery]

The throat mikes is useful when you are riding on a F15. A neckband signal pickup is useful in scuba gears.

Re:Throat mikes?

[SomeGuyTyping]

you bring up a good point. Couldn't people who have lost the use of their vocal chords still be able to use this and "talk" to others?

Re:Throat mikes?

[commando_jim]

Hawking's condition is a neurodegenerative disease and it seems likely that the condition that prevents him from using his own vocal cords would prevent him from using this device, since the device apparently registers peripheral nervous system signals. That sucks since it looks like it would otherwise be perfect for people in his condition.

Oh great

[Jafafa Hots]

"psychics" and televangelists will find a way to work this into their money making schemes.

Re:Oh great

[Joe Tie.]

So called psychics are going to look pretty pathetic as well, when anyone can transmit like this with 100% accuracy. Much of the allure of that whole scene is that it's firmly in the real of an unavailable other, and that the illusion of a 1% or so success rate can be spun as impressive. When any teen can get 99% success in transmitting information without speech or writing, there's going to be a lot less people falling for mentalisim disguised as reality.

Re:Oh great

[Jafafa Hots]

Yep. Just like how now that anyone can send email, nobody falls for Nigerian 419 scams, spam or phishing emails.

Re:Oh great

[ichigo 2.0]

I think the exact opposite will happen. The masses still haven't caught up to nineties tech, so I doubt they will learn about this anytime soon.

Re:Oh great

[dlthomas]

Amusing, as I'm sure was the intent, but misleading. 419s, spam, and phishing are not people *pretending to send email* - they are actual email with fraudulent content (headers included).

Great technology

[bondsbw]

Combine this with text-to-speech and wireless headphones, you have an effective non-vocal (and two-way) communication system that doesn't require the use of the hands or the knowledge of surrounding personnel.

The military uses, as well as civilian, are probably limitless. Of course, we're now one step closer to making it impossible to detect cheating on tests, and similar scenarios.

Re:Great technology

[sporkme]

Yes, this is absolutely amazing, and that a "backdoor hack" solution to the problem of "telepathic" communication and mobility is so promising is a testament to our ingenuity as a species. Great work! Please, though, let the commercial demand$ for entertainment and convenience devices $ubsidize the need for mobility and communication devices that disabled people need.

If you RTFA and watch a linked video, you will see a wheelchair controlled by thought. The the current iteration is rough and inaccurate, and the user must undergo training to the device, but I'd hope that the promise of provision and the simplicity of design in form and function will make this a real winner with further development. Reverse it: once the device can be trained to the user, we have a deployable thought-control system that uses our favorite external neural pathway, speech.

Accolades to the designers... I think we have a real winner here based on the proofs-of-concept, and with further development we will be better off is both convenience and humanitarianism.

Re:Great technology

[Chrisq]

"Read my lips, no more taxes Sub-verbal:(I'll just increase the old ones).

Re:Great technology

[bkaul01]

It'd still be quite possible to detect cheating on tests, etc.: the information has to be transmitted via radio waves. If they can be received, they can be detected. Undetectable communication is impossible.

Re:Great technology

[theheadlessrabbit]

Of course, we're now one step closer to making it impossible to detect cheating on tests, and similar scenarios. While teachers will be unable to detect these silent, unvocalized sounds being transmitted through the air, I'm sure the transmitter collar around their neck MIGHT clue them in that something strange is going on.

students will try to hide the neck band under their collar, but teachers will change the rules for attending exams so the device wont be so easy to hide.

outside the exam room, a sign will be posted that reads:

T-shirts only. No turtlenecks allowed!

then teachers will wonder why all essay questions now include penis jokes.

Re:Great technology

[ArsenneLupin]

Yes, this is absolutely amazing, and that a "backdoor hack" solution to the problem of "telepathic" communication What, are they communicating via farts?

Re:Great technology

[Culture20]

Of course, we're now one step closer to making it impossible to detect cheating on tests, and similar scenarios.

That just means tests will now have to pass or fail groups of people in a Faraday cage, then jumble the group(s) up for another similar test. Perhaps businesses of the future might like to hire small groups of people that can share knowledge efficiently enough to ace a test...

Re:Great technology

[Hognoxious]

students will try to hide the neck band under their collar, but teachers will change the rules for attending exams so the device wont be so easy to hide. outside the exam room, a sign will be posted that reads:

T-shirts only. No turtlenecks allowed!

Headline from the year 2015: Research finally reveals reason for recent academic success by islamic girls.

Re:Great technology

[amplt1337]

The the current iteration is rough and inaccurate, and the user must undergo training to the device, but I'd hope that the promise of provision and the simplicity of design in form and function will make this a real winner with further development. Reverse it: once the device can be trained to the user, we have a deployable thought-control system that uses our favorite external neural pathway, speech.

No matter what your brain is connected to, it takes it some time to figure out how to work it. That's why little kids are so clumsy -- they're developing neural pathways and fine nerve networks, sure, but they also have to learn what the brain has to do to produce desired body response.

Unlikely that you'll be able to eliminate the training component, but really it'll probably be something like learning to ride a bicycle. Or learning to grasp apples with your bionic third arm, whichever comparison seems more apt to you :)

Re:Great technology

[planckscale]

Could you give an example?

Would subvocal communications help two interrogators more effectively get answers than vocal communications? Why?

Re:Great technology

[Anonymous Coward]

RASCEEEST PEEG! I KEEEEL YOU! (random lower case garbage to delete kaffir gay lameness sonof a acamel feelter)

Not even close

[EdIII]

It's not quite telepathy, but it's pretty close.

The definition of Telepathy - apparent communication from one mind to another without using sensory perceptions.

Since there is a computer, a speaker, and the other persons ears involved, this is not even remotely close to being telepathy.

Re:Not even close

[iNaya]

It's pretty close. The technology involved doesn't matter. All they have to do is have the receiver input signals directly into the nerves that carry signals from the ears to the brain. Just get rid of the speakers. This type of technology already exists for eyes, why not for ears. Miniaturise the whole apparatus and for all intents and purposes it would look exactly like telepathy.

Re:Not even close

[EdIII]

It's not "pretty" close at all.

Read the definition again. Telepathy involves communication directly to ANOTHER brain without the use of any sensory apparatus on the receiving side, OR the sending the side.

Whatever you are talking about building will effectively create new sensory apparatuses.

Whatever it is, it will not be telepathy.

Re:Not even close

[sporkme]

Closest to ~telepathy~ we'll live to see... cynic. I won't be satisfied until I can actually communicate with my mind alone. Implants into my brain and straps on my neck do not qualify. Teach me to actually send my thoughts unaided! No, dammit, I don't want to use a tinfoil satellite dish! It is not telepathy unless my flesh can actually just broadcast my thoughts. That'll be the day...

Put down the weed, the dictionary and the Ray Bradbury! Don't dismiss a breakthrough just because it is not 80th century and is tagged as (not literal) telepathy. These guys have worked hard to develop a system that brilliantly answers a big question involving the transformation of thought to the physical world. Lower your cynic shield and watch the wheelchair video (linked in TFA). Have you even known a person with useless or missing legs? Arms? With this they could move about as freely as we "normies" do, utilizing simple vocal gestures. This is a major breakthrough, undeserving of lampooning.

--Not too sure about driving cars though. Or voting. Or intermarriage. Freaks.-- /sarcasm

Re:Not even close

[ceroklis]

That's a ridiculous argument. If telepathy is a form of communication, the brain still needs to have an input where it receive the information from the other brain. How is this input different from a "sensory apparatus"? Your definition of telepathy implies its impossibility, and is thus useless.

Or perhaps you consider that a device taping to the cochlear nerve is not part of the brain. Then what if the device was installed inside the cranium, directly connected to neurons, would you call it telepathy now ? If not where is the boundary ?

If you insist that the "brain" in you definition is a non-modified human brain then the question is quickly settled: telepathy doesn't exist. Therefore debating whether something is or is not telepathy is pointless.

Re:Not even close

[Jens Egon]

Your definition of telepathy is silly.

Try this one (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy).

Telepathy, from the Greek tele meaning "distant" and patheia meaning "to be affected by" describes the purported transfer of information on thoughts or feelings between individuals by means other than the five classical senses

Re:Not even close

[ichigo 2.0]

If you insist that the "brain" in you definition is a non-modified human brain then the question is quickly settled: telepathy doesn't exist. Therefore debating whether something is or is not telepathy is pointless.

Perhaps the GPs definition would be satisfied by a device (genetically engineered species, or an old fashioned piece of hardware) that sends signals to an unmodified brain? If it has to be baseline human to baseline human, then I agree that telepathy belongs in the same category as god, FSM and invisible pink unicorns.

Re:Not even close

[ichigo 2.0]

Damn, I knew I'd piss of some pastamentalists with my post. Well, at least I didn't draw an invisible pink unicorn.

Re:Not even close

[Mentorix]

a big question involving the transformation of thought to the physical world

Would you care to demonstrate that thought isn't part of the physical world first? Thought just isn't exactly understood, that doesn't mean it's not just a physical and natural process like EVERYTHING else we know anything about.

Re:Not even close

[WeeLad]

That's a ridiculous argument. If telepathy is a form of communication, the brain still needs to have an input where it receive the information from the other brain.

...

if you insist that the "brain" in you definition is a non-modified human brain then the question is quickly settled: telepathy doesn't exist. Therefore debating whether something is or is not telepathy is pointless.

Since telepathy is as proven as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it would behoove us not to make any assumptions about telepathy before totally casting the idea aside. Maybe it would not necessarily have to be brain-to-brain communication. I don't think the ideas of human consciousness and human thought have been fully explored enough to say that who you are is entirely defined within the organ in your skull. If there exists something beyond the grey matter, could it not too have some sense abilities?

... or maybe it's early, I haven't drank my coffee, and I'm trolling. Discuss.

Re:Not even close

[moikka]

The word telepathy has existed for hundreds of years so the word and its traditional definition have a point
whether it is useful form of communications to you or not

Telepathy requires some paranormal method of communication.
Something that is not possible within the laws of physics as we currently know them.
So building any apparatus however small and however close to brain, it is still not real telepathy.

Does putting a man-made cone on the nose of a horse make it a real unicorn?
Quite definately not.
And that does not depend on whether real unicorns exist or not.

Hope you are not offended if some stupid journalist decides that he is free to redefine the word "hacker"
if its original definition does not sound useful for him personally.

Re:Not even close

[EdIII]

It's funny that my posts are being modded offtopic, flamebaits, etc. while your post that asks me to put down the weed, a dictionary, and novels by specific authors gets modded up. Oh well, the meta moderators will work that out :)

In any case, my usage of dictionary is fitting. There is no emotion in this, just a rational use of a supplied definition from an online dictionary.

I am not taking away from anyone's work, but this hardly qualifies as telepathy. You do point it out right in your post. Telepathy IS communicating with your mind alone. I'm sorry, but this would like saying that FedEX overnight is like teleportation.

FTA, it states quite clearly that they are tapping into signals being sent to the vocal chords in the sender, and then translating them into speech with technology. If you view telepathy as two sides of a communication transaction, they are only manipulating one side of it anyways, while leaving the other side using their normal everyday abilities to listen to sound in the environment.

So it will have a great impact for those that are disabled, and I can see why some people would get emotional over that. It is wonderful and moving. Nonetheless, it is not telepathy.

P.S - Whoever is having fun modding me down for simply taking a rational position, have fun doing that :) It clearly makes you right :)

Re:Not even close

[EdIII]

It's interesting that I get modded as flamebait, when I am only trying to point out that according to a simple definition of telepathy, the technology in the article fails to meet it. That's all.

The level of emotion and passion here is surprising, as well as the irrational arguments (not your post specifically). In any case, my argument is not ridiculous and I stand by my position. These are not my definitions either, I take them directly from freely available online dictionaries.
 
 

Telepathy - apparent communication from one mind to another without using sensory perceptions

Sensory - of a nerve fiber or impulse originating outside and passing toward the central nervous system ; "sensory neurons"
involving or derived from the senses; "sensory experience"; "sensory channels"
relating to or concerned in sensation; "the sensory cortex"; "sensory organs"

apparatus - equipment designed to serve a specific function

The definitions are very clear here.

If telepathy is a form of communication, the brain still needs to have an input where it receive the information from the other brain.

If telepathy has an input, it cannot be from a sensory organ, or any nerves. I agree it has something like an input, but that is undefined.

Your definition of telepathy implies its impossibility, and is thus useless.

Once again, it is not my definition. I have copied and pasted from online dictionaries. It is not impossible, and not useless either. It must, by its very definition involve no sensory organs, nerves, and "perceptions".

Or perhaps you consider that a device taping to the cochlear nerve is not part of the brain

Yes. I would consider that the cochlear nerve is not part of the brain, but is part of the sensory organs attached to it.

Then what if the device was installed inside the cranium, directly connected to neurons, would you call it telepathy now ? If not where is the boundary ?

That's the heart of the argument isn't it? Where is the boundary? Perhaps, if a technological solution is to be found, it may have to be the neurons directly being manipulated. However, any technological solution involving equipment may be seen as a new sensory organ. In that case, it may get close to telepathy, but it will still not be telepathy.

I did not make the definition. Traditionally, telepathy is seen as minds communicating to one another over distance without the use any equipment, sensory perceptions, etc.

As for the technology in the article, it admits that one side of the communication transaction it is intercepting signals to vocal chords. After using that information, it will use computers, speakers, etc. to transmit that information as sound to another human being. I'm sorry, but that is not telepathy, nor is it close. It is missing at least 50% of it, and the usage of sensory organs on the sending side reduces the percentage further.

I believe that telepathy does exist, or can exist. It is not pointless to point out that a technology claiming to be like telepathy is reaching to far by the very definitions of the word.

Re:Not even close

[EdIII]

Respectfully, it is not MY definition. The rancor, and irrationality in this thread is rather surprising to me. People may attack me by modding me down, which will be corrected over time by the meta mods, but still.

In any case, I used the definition directly from the online dictionaries.

You claim I am being silly, but even by your definition telepathy is communication by means other then the five classical senses. The technology in the article states that 50% of the whole transmission is "classical" in nature. It also captures the communication from a speech organ directly.

So I am sincerely confused and taken aback by all this emotion being thrown into an otherwise simple observation that by a classical definition of telepathy, the technology in the article wholly fails to meet it.

At the risk of getting modded (which I really don't care all that much), it cannot even be close. I think the percentage may be less then 1%. That 1% being the fact that the sender is not making sound out of their mouth.

Re:Not even close

[Oligonicella]

Do any of the people here ever crack a damned dictionary? That's the definition. Too friggin' bad if it precludes this device. Telepathy is the direct communication between brains.

Re:Not even close

[Jens Egon]

Respectfully, it is not MY definition. The rancor, and irrationality in this thread is rather surprising to me. People may attack me by modding me down, which will be corrected over time by the meta mods, but still. It is not easy to tell people that you think they are silly, without making it sound like a personal attack. Still, you have my sincere apologies for any rancor you may have perceived. (Irrationality I will not apologize for. There's nothing wrong with a bit of irrationality!)

In any case, I used the definition directly from the online dictionaries. It's still silly since it rules out any telepathy. Even the real 'telepathy' that is mirror neurons in action. A silly definition is a silly definition no matter how many use it.

Re:Not even close

[EdIII]

Okay, but I still don't see how it is silly, or how it rules out telepathy.

How can the definition of something rule out it's possibility?

Telepathy, in our culture, has typically been seen as something paranormal, or of a psychic nature. Like vampires or Troi from the Star Trek TNG.

It has always been communication that involved no auditory speech, or sound waves of any kind as well as not using your "ears". So I don't find the definition silly, even if we may not know how to accomplish it.

Re:Not even close

[EdIII]

Careful buddy.

They all came out of the dark corners and modded my +5 insightful down to off topic, flame bait, etc. just for pointing out that a dictionary's definition rules out the device as telepathy.

Oh wait, I guess this might be considered flame bait too :)

In any case you are right, and thank you. The definition is quite clear on what we consider telepathy to be, and if that device is telepathy then FedEX Overnight is teleportation.

Re:With Careful Training?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

You invented the keyboard a decade ago?

Well, wipe my butt and call me Baby! And you deign to post here on Slashdot?

this won't go over well

[l0ungeb0y]

The computerized voice will ruin it.

Mainly because no one wants to have phonesex with Stephen Hawking.
"hellll-o, you rrrrrrrrrr-eally ta-urrrrrrning meon rightnow."

And then as an answer to that, they'll come out with customized "human sounding" voices and you'll be wanting to shoot all your friends who always call using the American idol flavor of the week voice.

Blind dates will be ruined too... For all you know, that babe-alicious voice on the other end belongs to a 300lb 60 year old with a trechiotomy.

Re:this won't go over well

[glittalogik]

A blind date with a sexy voice and and a tracheotomy? Jackpot!

Re:this won't go over well

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory Family Guy quotes:

The computerized voice will ruin it. Mainly because no one wants to have phonesex with Stephen Hawking.
"Don't worry, I hear they have great make-up sex." -Random guy at the prof's party

For all you know, that babe-alicious voice on the other end belongs to a ... 60 year old with a trechiotomy.
"So, what's the story, you ever get freaky with that thing?" -Quagmire (who else?)

Re:this won't go over well

[jollyreaper]

A blind date with a sexy voice and and a tracheotomy? Jackpot! Someone's going to have to explain to him the way deep throating is supposed to work, I think he's got the wrong idea.

Real Telepathy

[AKAImBatman]

Putting aside the "magic" aspect of telepathy that most SciFi authors seem to strive for, I have often considered how telepathy might look if it were a feature of a real species of creature. What I came up with is surprisingly realistic, though it lacks the charm of SciFi style telepathy.

The way I see it, telepathy is basically wireless communications. A species that "spoke" telepathically to one another in close proximity could use radio waves to communicate in an omnidirectional fashion. For high enough wavelengths, a nerve center acting as an antenna could be exposed from nearly any location on the body. (Possibly metallic in nature?) By modulating the frequency range used to "speak", a creature could become louder or quieter, effectively maintaining the type of privacy we humans enjoy with a whisper rather than a shout.

Of course, the disadvantage becomes immediately clear. There's no mind-reading involved. No cool body-takeovers, no telekinesis developing, nothing but a simple method of communication that is alien to us, yet accomplishes approximately the same task as human speech.

It's fun to think that "telepathy is the next stage of human evolution", but there are no obvious physics to support the SciFi interpretation of telepathy. (Especially when you get into telekinesis, which requires WAY more energy than the human body can produce!) What physics does allow us is slightly more boring, but none the less an interesting concept to explore. :-)

Re:Real Telepathy

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

I liked the comment, but

Especially when you get into telekinesis, which requires WAY more energy than the human body can produce!
[citation needed]

A mother can produce enough force to lift the back end of a car off her kid. Why would you assume that by gaining the magical power of TK, I would somehow only be able to produce less force?

Re:Real Telepathy

[smallfries]

You don't seem to have considered the effects of changing bandwidth in the channel. Speech is a type of brain to brain communication, but because we need to convert the symbols into something that can be transmitted and recognised through sound the bandwidth is quite low. What if you had another type of brain to brain communication that wasn't restricted by the abilities of the vocal cords and the ear? If the bandwidth were higher then we could transmit a more complex set of symbols that allowed richer communication.

One staple of telepathy in sci-fi is transmitting mental images or memories. This is something that could be achieved with your wireless commms, although the question of how to plug the transmitter and receiver into the brain is quite complex. No doubt the neurobiologists will have fun decoding that schematic..

Re:Real Telepathy

[QuantumG]

Are there any organisms that communicate by radio?

If not, why not?

There's certainly animals that communicate by light..

Re:Real Telepathy

[thedrx]

I think what you are looking for is the ability to speak. It's wireless. The problem is that it's relatively short-range, but it's offset by the fact that you don't need a lot of energy to speak (imagine your typical blabbermouth and how much energy would they need to engage in their favourite activity if they used say, 3GHz waves :P)

Re:Real Telepathy

[arotenbe]

A mother can produce enough force to lift the back end of a car off her kid. Why would you assume that by gaining the magical power of TK, I would somehow only be able to produce less force? The problem isn't one of producing the necessary force. The problem is of directing that force in a meaningful way, i.e. at the object you want to move, and not obliterating it in the process.

Gotta remember that inverse-square law.

Re:Real Telepathy

[jd]

Since the transceiver would be relatively small in comparison to most parts of the brain, there is no reason to assume only the speech centre would have such a system. Indeed, as the complexity of the brain is a function of the complexity of the interconnects, there would be an advantage in an organism where all parts of the brain were electrically isolated (less risk of seizures going non-local) but totally interconnected (you couldn't have that many interconnects physically), provided there was sufficient bandwidth. If you can also dispense with any neurons just there for switching and routing purposes, you would be able to have more processing neurons for the same space and heat output. This allows all senses, memories, etc, to be linked and would be closer to Isaac Asimov's "Gaia" than to conventional notions of telepathy in science-fiction.

(By the way, The Tomorrow People distinguishes between telepathy and telekinesis and is generally closer to the concepts described by ESP enthusiasts than, say, The X-Men comics. Sapphire And Steel does an even better job of it. If you don't mind slow-paced, plot-heavy sci-fi, then I would suggest trying either. It's not necessary to live on a monoculture diet. There's many flavours of sci-fi out there.)

Re:Real Telepathy

[Jens Egon]

There are certainly animals that have electromagnetic senses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroreception

Note that the active electroreceptive animals could in principle communicate that way. (whether any does I don't know.)

Re:Real Telepathy

[LaskoVortex]

"Radio" and light are fundamentally the same, the only difference is their location in the electromagnetic spectrum. More relevant might be "in what range of the electromagnetic spectrum do organisms use for communication (with other organisms)".

Re:Real Telepathy

[blahplusplus]

"Of course, the disadvantage becomes immediately clear. There's no mind-reading involved. No cool body-takeovers, no telekinesis developing, nothing but a simple method of communication that is alien to us, yet accomplishes approximately the same task as human speech."

Unfortunately I am more interested in mind sharing, the ability to connect and share our images and raw data in our minds eye in another persons mind, even if imperfectly. Manythings can be accomplished once we can actually decode what peoples thoughts are in real-time and visualize them in some way, even if it's not telepathic, people can then actually 'draw' and 'show' with their mind what they want something to be or look like. The artist in me would love to do this and I'm sure many artists would also love to have the ability to actually be able to conver their thoughts directly into art or a working model upon which they can touch up outside their mind.

Re:Real Telepathy

[bdjacobson]

I liked the comment, but

Especially when you get into telekinesis, which requires WAY more energy than the human body can produce! [citation needed]

A mother can produce enough force to lift the back end of a car off her kid Oh dear, what happens if the whining children get some of this technology. Now not only are they screaming at mommy for that box of cereal, everyone else at the grocery store will be able to hear it too!

Re:Real Telepathy

[Have Brain Will Rent]

It's fun to think that "telepathy is the next stage of human evolution", but there are no obvious physics to support the SciFi interpretation of telepathy. (Especially when you get into telekinesis, which requires WAY more energy than the human body can produce!) What physics does allow us is slightly more boring, but none the less an interesting concept to explore. :-)

Mmmm well it could be there will be some support in some of the enormous body of "non-obvious physics"... you know, all the stuff we don't know yet... :) Maybe directly applying force on something isn't the most efficient way to get it to move.

Re:Real Telepathy

[Anonymous Coward]

Or everyone would just go away to the corn field.

Re:Real Telepathy

[Carthag]

> A mother can produce enough force to lift the back end of a car off her kid

Citation needed indeed. Since when was that anything but an urban legend?

Re:Real Telepathy

[Culture20]

Did you never see the video of the guy lifting the crashed helicopter off his friend ~10 years ago? Sure, he just lifted half of it, and he was a "big" guy, but he shouldn't have been able to do that.

Re:Real Telepathy

[SirGarlon]

a nerve center acting as an antenna could be exposed from nearly any location on the body. (Possibly metallic in nature?)

A species capable of radio communication would probably develop tools to enhance their natural transmission and reception capabilities. Something like hand (or tentacle)-held antennae, parabolic dishes, and so forth.

Re:Real Telepathy

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"The way I see it, telepathy is basically wireless communications."

...you mean like talking?

Re:Real Telepathy

[AKAImBatman]

By the way, The Tomorrow People distinguishes between telepathy and telekinesis and is generally closer to the concepts described by ESP enthusiasts than, say, The X-Men comics.

The original or the remake? The remake was somewhat grounded, but telepathy was shown to function over worldwide distances. An unlikely possibility given the difficulties and long wavelengths necessary to send radio signals around the curve of the Earth. The teleportation capability was even more unlikely.

Now in the classic series, "Jaunting" at least required special belts. That was somewhat acceptable, even if it was a bit out there. But (as I recall) telepathy was shown to work at incredible distances reaching far into the solar system, and even into hyperspace. (Hyperspace itself being a "magic" shortcut for FTL travel.) The amount of power necessary to communicate over those distances is a bit too much for a human-powered, omnidirectional radio. However, the central computer of the series was at least consistent with the concept of radio telepathy. :-)

Re:Real Telepathy

[jd]

In the original series, the computer was needed for any telepathy over extreme distances. Additionally, the characters needed to link up to the computer directly "to boost the signal". Routing wireless-to-wireless through the computer wasn't possible, making it very similar to the way wireless access points actually operate. Over insterstellar distances, both telepathy and jaunting not only required the computer but also a specialized communications system that operated distinctly from the regular mechanisms. Again, that could be likened to the difference between a terrestrial FM broadcast and a deep-space mission-control-to-probe communications hookup.

Oh, I agree it's "unrealistic" and out-there. Most sci-fi is. However, there are a respectable number of real-world parallels - enough, I think, to say that they got the complexities involved covered. The mechanisms, scale, sophistication, etc, are totally fictional and implausible - though mostly necessary for the plots and not as excessive as some sci-fi out there. The premise that there was no universal solution but rather lots of very specialized ones was probably the thing that made the series respectable.

Re:Real Telepathy

[corbettw]

Did you never see the video of the guy lifting the crashed helicopter off his friend ~10 years ago? No, but I know a guy who knows a guy who saw it. He said it was really cool!

Best Aspect

[LaskoVortex]

Since the device presumably requires contact with a person to use, this should effectively eliminate annoying background noises from public places, busses, etc., and it would also eliminate the echo effect that some headsets have (where you can hear yourself echoed in your own earplug). In fact, using these with normal talking should work just as well so you could reap these benefits without training. Now--if they could make a decent earplug with good volume and sound reproduction, we'd be all set.

so it requires training ehh??..

[RuBLed]

Hi Mom...

Not Sure About This Working Too Well

[BigAssRat]

Seems like a pretty cool idea, but how are you supposed to interpret letters that come out the same but are fundamentally the same from the beginning? I would think that from the vocal cord stand point many sounds are almost, if not entirely, identical but the lips and mouth movements vary the pitch. How is this device going to tell the difference in those if it is reading the vocal cords?

early days of speech recognition software

[seanbruckman]

The system demonstrated at the TI conference can recognise only a limited set of about 150 words and phrases, says Callahan, who likens this to the early days of speech recognition software. Oh, i see. So it will take a hundred years to perfect? Can't wait. Really.

Military Uses?

[happyslayer]

After seeing the demo video, let me be the first to say:

I, for one, welcome our jack-booted but mute-or-telepathic, robotic-translation, 3 second-delay Overlords!

This is telepathy, very obviously

[prajjwal]

This, combined with the other technology posted here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/19/238209 makes it easily a telepathy device as follows: 1. Nerve tapping voice converted to signals 2. Signals processed and transmitted by device causing the other person who is "hearing voices in his head" (see other post) If both parties have each device (i.e. nerve-tapping + voice hearing combo), then they can effectively communicate 'telepathically', and this can easily be secured with a bit more research.

Re:With Careful Training?

[oodaloop]

I think he was intimating he invented the wireless keyboard. But still...

A 17 year old Sci Fi device from the book "Earth"

[Jim Ethanol]

This tech was described in a fair amount of detail in the 1990 book "Earth" by David Brin.

Quote from Earth: "She took a subvocal input device from its rack and placed the attached sensors on her throat, jaw, and temples. A faint glitter in the display screens meant the machine was already tracking her eyes, noting by curvature of lens and angle of pupil the exact spot on which she focused at any moment.

She didn't have to speak aloud, only intend to. The subvocal read nerve signals, letting her enter words by just beginning to will them. It was much faster than any normal speech input device... and more cantankerous as well. Jen adjusted the sensitivity level so it wouldn't pick up each tiny tremor - a growing problem as her once athletic body turned wiry and inexact with age. Still, she vowed to hold onto this rare skill as long as possible."

Once again Sci Fi pwns reality...

Re:With Careful Training?

[Jens Egon]

Just because his prior art has prior art doesn't mean it's not prior art.

I worked there

[theppb]

I was a 98C in the US Army until recently and did a tour for No Such Agency. I remember visiting the museum with my grandparents and getting hassled by the cops when grandpa took some photos of their welcome sign. It was super interesting - the Civil War wing especially. Who knew there was a signals intelligence field or cryptographic enterprise in Lincoln's era?

Re:I worked there

[Muad'Dave]

I was a 98C in the US Army...

I didn't know the Army divided their troops based on their temperature. How does it feel to be nearly boiling? 8-)

Re:A 17 year old Sci Fi device from the book "Eart

[kaos07]

Once again Sci Fi pwns reality...

Except those are words and this is real...

The last thing the world needs...

[timmarhy]

.... is more opertunities for people to talk, because frankly the internet has shown my that people mostly talk shit.

Re:The last thing the world needs...

[Jens Egon]

Mod this guy down. He really deserves more power.

Sir Fred Hoyle

[jd]

As much as I dislike his oil-from-volcanos and continuous-creation ideas, he did come up with some interesting sci-fi, especially in the area you're talking about. One of his stories, "The Black Cloud", hypothesises beings with immense bandwidth between individuals and discusses at length the impact of bandwidth on individualism and communications. It also suggests the impact of very high-bandwidth communication from such an individual to the human mind (the human mind might initially be taken over but would rapidly fry).

Interesting

[gaderael]

What sort of scenario would this be useful? I think it'd be far more useful if they could somehow use this tech to go in reverse. From either one persons vocal chords, or thoughts, and sent directly to another persons. This would be great for those who are deaf.

Re:Interesting

[Nullav]

Sounds useful for private conversations. Just imagine two people sitting at a bench in a park, with the only clue that they're speaking being a set of wires between them.
Another use would be phones, especially those annoying Bluetooth headsets which people are so fond of. It wouldn't help much in the way of privacy, but it's so irritating when I'm talking to someone with a headset hidden under their hair (who then goes straight into a call without telling me).

Re:A 17 year old Sci Fi device from the book "Eart

[jhoger]

And, OSC's Speaker For The Dead (1986).

-- John.

Slips of the mind

[Nullav]

Before going near such a device, I want to know how likely I am to slip up and say what I'm thinking instead of just what I want to say. With my actual vocal cords, I still need to open my mouth to stick my foot in it.

Re:Slips of the mind

[fastest fascist]

Well, it requires training, which to me implies it requires an effort to actually say something. So it's not like it reads your mind.

Re:Slips of the mind

[WeeLad]

With my actual vocal cords, I still need to open my mouth to stick my foot in it.

Even with the actual work of making sound the old fashioned way, I still manage to say some pretty stupid things, particularly to women. If anything, I need something that will tap into my nervous system and give me a jolt to force a pause for reflection when I'm about to speak.

I Want It NOW!!

[kornkid606]

With careful training a person can send nerve signals to their vocal cords without... /HEAVY_SARCASM on

Training? Who the hell has time for that crap in this day and age? I want to telepathically tell Google to find me porn and I want it NOW! I mean really!? Who has time for training except for fucking crip... oh, nevermind.

/HEAVY_SARCASM off

Sounds like a cool and useful device, especially for the disabled, who I am guessing are its current intended target. Now Dr. Hawking has a new way to berate my intelligence... HOORAY!

What came out of the speaker

[Sinbios]

"Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all"?

Re:A 17 year old Sci Fi device from the book "Eart

[stas2k]

This weekend I saw a similar device at CeBit. It allowed to input text into computer using you eyes only. You would look at on-screen keyboard and the letters to witch your eyes are pointed would be typed in. I seemed very Sci-Fi like ;). After my colleague took a photo of the device, we looked at the photo, and saw two infrared windows. One scanned vertically, other horizontally. It seems that it simply triangulated your eye position. So simple, yet brilliant. It makes computer accessible to people with motor disability.

Could be a great programming tool.

[Marbleless]

I could see this as a good tool for programming, especially when entering initial blocks of text.

Used with a suitable editor that tracks the language and variable names as they are being 'spoken' it could work well and since it is silent it wouldn't disturb the slave on the next oar .. I mean programmer in the next cubicle.

Enders Game

[delvsional]

Jane? Is that you?

Re:Enders Game

[lthown]

exactly. Just finished "Children of the Mind" - when I read the article all I could think of was Ender/Miro/Peter's Jewels

Re:Enders Game

[dancpsu]

Not really. Ender had to move to make his speech. This doesn't require movement at all, just thought.

Re:screw myminicity

[jacquesm]

actually, no that's a troll that has cut & pasted stuff from my post.

But from the looks of it some 13 year old with a grudge is trying hard to make me look bad.

The myminicity plague seems to have been neutralized.

I often wonder if these trolls are aware that the /. admins all have access to their particulars anyway and that they are far from anonymous.

Re:A 17 year old Sci Fi device from the book "Eart

[Aladrin]

Thank you. I was trying to remember where I remembered a device like this from and knew it wasn't the other poster's example.

This could seriously change some things

[zappepcs]

Walk into high school math class at 9:45, pop quiz says the teacher, reads the questions, pausing for 30 seconds after each one, computer whirring in the corner, at 10:05 the teacher announces "Well, since 6 of you failed today we are going to study xyz"

Once communication is set to bits and bytes things can go a lot faster. At least in some circumstances. Speed dating might get a whole new power setting from this and some vital sign stats.

I can see quite a few things changing radically when you don't have to the have the social clutter of one person talking at a time.

Re:This could seriously change some things

[jsiren]

I can see quite a few things changing radically when you don't have to the have the social clutter of one person talking at a time. I see you haven't met my mother-in-law.

Re:This could seriously change some things

[Culture20]

... reads the questions, pausing for 30 seconds after each one, computer whirring in the corner ... Speed dating might get a whole new power setting from this ... I can see quite a few things changing radically when you don't have to the have the social clutter of one person talking at a time.

That social clutter is crucial to the dating process; unless you're looking for instant-computer-dating with a different input method.

Re:This could seriously change some things

[zappepcs]

You were expecting dating experts on /. ??? WTF?

Re:This could seriously change some things

[rezalas]

teachers have been failing students in real time for many thousands of years without the help of a computer. Ask my old Java teacher, hell he would tell you if you failed before you took the test. Then again...

Re:This could seriously change some things

[Fear the Clam]

Walk into high school math class at 9:45, pop quiz says the teacher, reads the questions, pausing for 30 seconds after each one, computer whirring in the corner, at 10:05 the teacher announces "Well, since 6 of you failed today we are going to study xyz"

This is already being done in classrooms with clickers.

Re:This could seriously change some things

[Taevin]

I also wonder how technology like this might change testing procedures in general. Especially as implantable receiving technology, like cochlear implants, becomes more ubiquitous, what's to stop students from cheating on examinations? With this current technology it would be fairly easy to prevent by checking students for transmitting neck bands (or perhaps by using school provided, encrypted neckbands that only communicate with the classroom server). What about with a more future tech though? I can imagine a future where infants are injected with nanomachines at birth which travel to the brain and form a transmitter with connections to the speech processing center. Children could be taught to imagine this device in their brain as a 'person' they could talk to in order to transmit that speech. In such a future, would students have to complete examinations inside a chamber that blocked transmissions? That's the obvious solution but I wonder if there is a more interesting one that embraces the technology rather than sequestering it.

Re:This could seriously change some things

[White Yeti]

There could be many advantages to a collective memory (or an external cache for your own experiences). It's interesting that there are so many SF stories about conflict between "individualism" and hive minds, both "commie" and "ascendant consciousness". Were there pre-fascist Borg? I guess we'll find out when we get there.

Wonder who funded it

[smchris]

Don't see any mention of the obvious military applications.

I for one welcome...

[thrill12]

...our telepathic, nerve-tapping cat overlords !

Would you like some KumpiKat ?


Oh.. you meant chat...

It's vocal cords, not vocal chords

[kurisuto]

"Chords" are in music. The structures in the larynx are "cords" as in rope.

Re:It's vocal cords, not vocal chords

[Koiu Lpoi]

According to this guy, we find "contemporary writers opting for vocal chords instead of vocal cords 49% of the time". That's pretty big, and it may end up being another accepted spelling.

Circles also have chords.

Re:It's vocal cords, not vocal chords

[arb phd slp]

"Chords" are in music. The structures in the larynx are "cords" as in rope.

That was how I learned it too. "Cord" referring to the vocal ligament attached to the thyroarytenoid muscle, but replaced by "fold" referring to the whole muscle and its mucosal tissue. I'm not going to correct anyone on this anymore, though. Common usage always wins out in the end.

Thank you!

[FlopEJoe]

Now, for the love of God, can you stop talking so loud on your cell phone at the airport? Nobody cares about your (probably pretend) business conversation and you don't have to talk so f'n LOUD!

Data Mining

[thedeadswiss]

I think that the most interesting idea is the ability to tap into a database, and retrieve data. A police officer sees a suspicious car, and gets the details by thinking the number plate. A helpdesk drone thinks a set of keywords for a problem, and retrieves a solution. A programmer gets an error message that they don't understand, and gets the full details just by thinking the error number. This could open up whole new vistas...

GitS:SAC anyone?

[l0cust]

I remember one episode of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex where there was some trouble with a bunch of geisha robots and that bald leader guy Aramaki was trying to convince a military guy to not to raid the place or something. At one point they leave the meeting room to talk in private, Aramaki stretches out a wire from some electronic collar he is wearing and the other guy attaches that to a similar one around his neck, and both of them start communicating without speaking a single word. Seems like the exact sort of thing TFA is talking about.

PS: Yeah anime ruined my life too (and Kusanagi is hawt!)

MARS ATTACKS!!!

[molex333]

We are peaceful, we mean you no harm! I can't wait for someone to hack this and make people say crazy shit! Are we so lazy that we no longer wish to speak for ourselves? Sometimes technology and scientists are dumb! I hate things like this. It will never be reality and who cares if it is. We still can't get a decent spell checker or voice recognition system but we have this useless crap.

Just Report What's There

[DynaSoar]

> It's not quite telepathy, but it's pretty close.

Jaheezus criminy, must people make /. look so 14 year old golly gee whiz?

It's absolutely nothing like telepathy. The band is picking up electrical signals in the muscles (called EMG: electromyography) controlling the vocal cords . They can react to reading silently, particularly if you read something "out loud to yourself". If you imagine your own voice while reading something or even imagine speaking, this will happen. It's called subvocalization, and the muscle movements are similar to, but not the same as, speech. That's why the device can differentiate between spoken and "silent" speech. This has been known for decades. Someone has managed to build something that decodes the signals into something like the original words being read or imagined.

There is no transmission of anything, much less thoughts. Although a novel approach, this is simply another human-machine interface. And one that I'll wager will require fairly extensive training for each individual using it, including training it to read them in different physiological states.

The article was worth reporting here without the crap in the last sentence of the summary. I sincerely hope that crap was not what got it approved.

Re:Just Report What's There

[dancpsu]

>> It's called subvocalization, and the muscle movements are similar to, but not the same as, speech.

There is NO MUSCLE MOVEMENT. I repeat, this technology uses NO MUSCLE MOVEMENT. This is not "subvocalization" where you can see someones neck and jaw moving. This is picking up word-thoughts like you have right now when reading this post. Thinking about words sends tiny signals that are not nearly strong enough to move a muscle to your vocal cords. This thing picks that up and translates the nerve impulses into speech. This may not be telepathy in the form of reading someone's memories, or pictures out of someone's mind, but this can pick up word thoughts without the person moving a muscle. I think that's within the definition of telepathy.

Re:Just Report What's There

[s_p_oneil]

I'm going to have to agree with the other reply. It sounds like there is no muscle movement, just thought. Add a receiver and make it wireless, and you could have completely silent - telepathic for all intents and purposes - communications with someone else. It may even work for stroke patients who can't speak, or perhaps even for someone in a coma. Researches often suspect that some people in a coma can hear and think actively, but can't move any of their muscles.

Another interesting thing to wonder about is if you're bored with a conversation you're having while using this thing, and your mind starts to wander, could you accidentally say something you didn't mean to say while pretending to be listening? I imagine that initially it requires concentration to make the thing speak for you, but once it becomes second nature, it may be possible for things to slip out that you didn't intend. Along similar lines, what if you had it hooked up while dreaming? It could definitely open up several new avenues for psychology studies.

Curious

[joeyblades]

First, this is still a long way from telepathy.

Second, there seems to be a big problem with latency.

Third, something seems fishy about this demonstration. The timber of your voice, inflection, accent, most of the recognizable aspects involve the movement of air over the vocal chords. Yet somehow, supposedly without air moving across the demonstrators vocal chords, the output sounded just like his speaking voice, including normal dynamic range. That's some computer algorithm! Much, much better than any prior text-to-speech technology available. I mean, if I didn't know better, I would swear that we were merely hearing pre-recorded clips... oh wait... I guess I don't know better.

Re:Curious

[argent]

First, he only "said" half a dozen words through the interface, that's hardly enough to identify someone's voice. Second, voice synthesis does fake dynamics. It doesn't get it from anywhere, it makes it up from the sentence structure.

In fact the first thing he "said" though the interface sounded very much like Apple's voice synth on the Mac.

Help for the mute with Damaged voiceboxes!

[jameskojiro]

I can see this as becomming a replacement for those who have lost their voicebox due to throat cancer, but it is still cool that normal people may use it too!

Let's trademark!

[slawo]

Let's trademark iVentriloquism! After the iPhone, I'm sure it will be the future must have gadget.

Hawking

[PinkyGigglebrain]

I wonder if something like this could help Steve Hawking? His brain is still working but the nerves controlling his body have degenerated.

Re:Hawking

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA all ready had neural voice pattern recognition based off a device similar to the Berlin Brain Computer Interface... it was on the web for a total of two days... then the quickly removed it and censored it.

Subvocalization

[aepervius]

Probably using subvocalization

quote: "Subvocalization involves actual movements of the tongue and vocal cords that can be interpreted by electromagnetic sensors. Since 1999 NASA, as part of its Extension of the Human Senses program, has been working on a system that can interpret a limited number of English words using nervous signals gathered from sensors placed on the throat's exterior. "

Re:Subvocalization

[dancpsu]

It's not subvocalization. It doesn't require someone to move. It just requires you to think. Did you move your jaw or tongue or lips to the words when reading this or writing your post? No? This machine picks that up.

Sure you're not the one who's missing it?

[Anonymous Coward]

A person with a tracheotomy can breathe with their mouth full.

Stuff like this is dangerous

[core_dump_0]

Men constantly think about sex, so if he's thinking sexual thoughts about the person while she's on the phone, he could be in serious trouble. It has even worse implications if the man is a closet homosexual and/or sex fetishist. This is truly scary and ought to be banned if it ever takes off.

Re:Stuff like this is dangerous

[dancpsu]

Unless you think about sex in words, this won't pick it up. If you spend your time imagining a woman naked, no need to worry, but if you think "I want to see her naked", then you'll broadcast that to the world.

using these for lie detectors

[peter303]

People often subvocalize what they are reading or thinking about. I heard of projects to make these as part of lie detectors. Of course, you'd also give the subject a drug to intefere with their mental concentration so they dont try to game the device.

Re:using these for lie detectors

[SINternet]

This is the first thought I had about this potential device when I read about it this morning. Imagine pluging everyone in. How about the ability to send back info via to the brain using this device. Essentially the Brain firewalls/filters the eyes and ears but this could be exploited to plant thought and images, or cloud Judgement! I saw couple of weeks ago there was an article about sending High Frequencies messages to people with almost pinpoint accuracy. Turning left when I should have went right. Leaving you with a question of "Why did I do that?". Sounds like a good plot for a Sci-Fi Movie. Eventually they'll have DRM for the brain and you'll have to pay a fee to walk memory lane. Alot of Neat Science that will be used against us if Corporations have their way. I guess we're on the verge of really being enslaved but too stupid to see it. Certainly seems like the Matrix is possible to achieve. SIN SINternet

Carpal tunnel solution

[Maxo-Texas]

I hurt every word I type.

Mousing sucks worse.

I would like a visual rig to move the mouse (look at the screen and the cursor goes there) and a vocal rig for clicking and typing.

This development sounds really exciting.

the bleak future

[rice_burners_suck]

There should be a law that requires everyone to wear a neckband that sends all their thoughts to the government, for thoughtcrime enforcement. Violation of this law (being caught without the neckband) would result in an immediate death penalty, without a trial. (Wasn't there a movie about something like this once?)

Shades of David Brin

[dmmiller2k]

In his SF novel, "Earth", David Brin had one of his principal characters interacting with a computer using a nearly identical mechanism. Brin referred to it in the book as "sub-vocalization." See this: http://www.davidbrin.com/earth1.html

I've been waiting for this for almost twenty years.

Covert Ops/HRT

[blueZ3]

Figure you have this wired up to your radio mic and are wearing an earpiece...

You have a team entering a building to rescue hostages held by a group of "bad guys"--the team can coordinate their actions and make changes to the plan in real time without the worry that their communication will be overheard. No more whispering into the mike--you just sub-vocalize and your teammates hear you.

And we can stop the Secret Service guys from doing that stupid "talking into my sleeve isn't a dead giveaway what I'm doing" thing.

Applications for ALS

[spazdor]

Does this mean we can squeeze a few more useful years out of Stephen Hawking?

underwater

[RJBeery]

My first thought was that this could make underwater communication possible. My second thought was that now wives could nag us even while their mouths are busy, um, doing other things...like eating

You won't miss her till she is gone.

[nappingcracker]

"Come back to me, Jane," he wrote. "I love you."

Subvocalization does that too

[aepervius]

Did you read the wiki ? You don#t move or your jaw or anything, you don#t even move your vocal cord enough to emit a sound. Due to the fact they are speaking of taping the nerve impulse to the vocal cord, I am pretty sure that is exactly the same things as described here, and the position of the electrode quite clearly also confirm it : subvocal recognition

QUOTE "Subvocal recognition (SVR) is the art of taking subvocalization and converting the detected results to a digital text-based output. It is similar to voice recognition except it is silent subvocalization being detected. It is a new technology being researched and developed at NASA's Ames Research Laboratory in Mountain View, California under the supervision of Charles Jorgensen. A set of electrodes are attached to the skin of the throat and, without opening the mouth or uttering a sound, the words are recognized by a computer."

If you can recognize word, then you can as well transmit what the myogram of the vocal cord does and this would amount exactly to that claim : "With careful training a person can send nerve signals to their vocal cords without making a sound. These signals are picked up by the neckband and relayed wirelessly to a computer that converts them into words spoken by a computerised voice"

I am terribly sorry, but this is EXACTLY what sub-vocalization and sub-vocal recognition does !

Telepathy? Heck, it's barely OK for telephony...

[rholland356]

"Hello? Mr. Lipschitz?

No, I was calling for Mr. Lipshitz. Is he in the office?

Lipshitz! Lipshitz!

No, I don't mean to insult you Madam, I'm trying to reach my attorney, Mr. Lipshitz! Can you find Mr. Lipshitz for me?

No, no, don't call the police. I'm just trying to reach Mr. Lipshitz.

Oh, bother..."

I think you can see why this technology might be the ideal replacement for that bluetooth Borg-ear you wear.

Real World App

[LuxMaker]

Soldiers in the field who need to have strict noise discipline can now communicate to each other silently. Cool tech.

They used something similar in a Stallone movie

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm,
They used a head mounted Orgasmatron-like headset in some sci-fi movie with Stallone playing a cop that would simulate shagging with a person with a like headset. Stallone almost achieved a thought orgasm that made him take off his headset before he climaxed (Hollywoods' way of avoiding the obvious "messy" censorship problem). But, if he had indeed climaxed, would he have "released" anything or would he have just went through the motions?

So, similarly, if this "thought phone" is to work, doesn't some part of your body have to actually move to make the "Thought Utterance" authentic? I mean if you're "Thought Talking" with your girlfriend and some eye-candy walks by and bends over near your cubicle at work, how would the "ThoughtPhone" not interpret "Come on, just a little bit more, Oh yeah BABY, that's the way to do it!" into the receiver while remarking to your girlfriend about the reason she spends too much money on shoes?