Slashdot Mirror


Northrop Grumman To Develop Brain-Wave Binoculars

An anonymous reader writes "An AP wire reports that DARPA has granted a $6.7 million contract to Northrop Grumman to develop 'brainwave binoculars'. The binoculars will be built into a helmet, which will include EEG electrodes that will monitor the wearer's brain activity for patterns consistent with object identification/recognition. From what I can gather, the idea is that when you look at a far-off or partially obscured object without noticing it, your subconscious probably did notice it and tried, unsuccessfully, to identify it. The EEG in these binoculars would pick up on that kind of subconscious activity and draw the wearer's attention to the object in question. The goal is that these binoculars would be able to pick up on any object anywhere in the wearer's field of view, where a person can only pick up on things that he focuses both his eyes and his attention on. This delves into some very interesting territory: it would be an electronic device that uses human eyes to collect data, and even uses a human brain to partially process the data. Since it also passes its results back to the human providing the data and initial processing, it essentially adds a second processing loop in parallel to the wearer's visual system."

18 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. waste of taxpayer dollars by wiggles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If this makes it past vaporware, I'll dance a jig.

    1. Re:waste of taxpayer dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      waste of taxpayer dollars (Score:2)

      If this makes it past vaporware, I'll dance a jig.

      Probably said at the onset of most of the DARPA projects, most breakthrough technologies in all fields of science really, that's kind of the point.

    2. Re:waste of taxpayer dollars by 4solarisinfo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If this makes it past vaporware, I'll dance a jig.

      This is probably said at the origins of almost all DARPA projects. That's their point.
  2. Sounds Just Like ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... those x-ray glasses they used to sell in the backs of comic books.

    What do you want to bet that the only thing these binoculars register is 'tits'.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Sounds Just Like ... by Shotgun · · Score: 5, Funny

      What do you want to bet that the only thing these binoculars register is 'tits'.

      And how would that be a waste of money?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  3. Necromunger scope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this remind anyone of the Necromunger Scope beings from Chronicles of Riddick?

  4. Future press release. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Servicemen reprimanded for zooming in on young women's breasts. One of the servicemen was quoted as saying, "It's the damn sub-conscious link! I can't do anything about it!" Defense department reevaluating binoculars.

    1. Re:Future press release. by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait, 9 of them zoomed in on the woman's breast, but why is this 10th one looking at the guy beside her?

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    2. Re:Future press release. by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 4, Funny

      However if you you think you are at risk of being shot at, your mind takes a different priority. Sex is usually at #2 after imeadeate survival.

    3. Re:Future press release. by edwebdev · · Score: 5, Funny

      This tactic would work even without subconscious binoculars!

  5. Alternative use: by Hyppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Think about using this in interrogations.

    Interrogator: "Do you recognize these photos of bomb making materials?"
    Suspect: "No, no I don't."
    Interrogator: "Liar! Our brain wave scanner says you do! Off to the waterboard with you!"

  6. Oh Wow, Man... the Images by Stanistani · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From reading the short article, it looks like a method to take images the brain filters out as unimportant, and bring them up to the conscious level.

    Problem: if you do this, wouldn't this clutter your view with unimportant images, or alternatively cause cognitive confusion? A person with this device attached literally couldn't trust their eyes anymore.

    Sounds like Mescaline.

  7. Re:I think the question on every ./er's mind is... by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Funny

    So long as you don't try and reformat with ReiserFS -- I hear that's a little dangerous.

  8. false positives? by Alexis+Goyet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember reading about the research behind that; that the "subconscious" detected things quicker than the conscious human. But if I could find it again, I'd like to see the details of the testing.

    My guess is that the time between subconsciously and consciously recognizing something is used for verifications. So you get quicker results in the case where the image is, in fact, what you are asked to recognise, but you'd get false positives in the other cases.

    I mean, recognizing threats is pretty important, evolution-wise. Since this device just takes existing data from the brain and feeds it back in, it's hard to believe it would be of any help, or we would have evolved the same thing.

    1. Re:false positives? by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since this device just takes existing data from the brain and feeds it back in, it's hard to believe it would be of any help, or we would have evolved the same thing. The system we evolved was "good enough" to get us to age 30 or so and pass on our genes. It's not necessarily good enough to recognize someone on the horizon with a shoulder-mounted RPG launcher pointed at you. Sure, we can be trained to recognize the shapes and shadows which indicate that, but then we have to look at it and focus for a second to consciously realize what we're seeing.

      Our brains are incredibly good at parallel pattern matching. We can see patterns - real or spurious - in almost anything. But those thousands of parallel pattern matching units have to be funneled through a single consciousness to be useful. If a computer can sort through the synapses, find the ones that are looking to match "man with RPG in the distance", and figure out when they fire, it can perhaps bring something up on the display faster than the person can. Computers, after all, can process a small number of things faster than we can. They just can't process as many complex things in parallel.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  9. Recursion issues abound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Guy wearing binoculars notices some object
    Binoculars sense this and draw attention to object by putting some kind of HUD symbol on screen
    Guy wearing binoculars notices HUD display object
    Binoculars sense this and draw attention to object by putting some kind of HUD symbol on screen
    Guy wearing binoculars notices HUD display object
    Binoculars sense this and draw attention to object by putting some kind of HUD symbol on screen
    Guy wearing binoculars notices HUD display object
    Binoculars sense this and draw attention to object by putting some kind of HUD symbol on screen
    ...
    Binoculars and/or Guy's brain explodes
    ???
    Profit

    1. Re:Recursion issues abound by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Profit

      The issue is that with the current state of DARPA and US military "research", you can put pretty much anything in front of this line (including as many lines of ??? as you want) and it'll still happen.

  10. Darwin says... BZZZT! by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The primate brain evolved in a situation where noticing hidden things was kind of important. Didn't see that shape in the grass? Oops, it was a skulking lion, you're dead, return genome to sender. We're the product of millions of years of life-or-death vision tests, and as a consequence, we're pretty good at it.

    This device is based on the idea that some part of your brain might notice a hidden thing, but doesn't bother to tell the rest of you so you can react. This is evolutionary suicide. I'd have a hard time coming up with a trait that would be naturally selected out of the gene pool faster.

    If this device worked, anyone who could use it would have gone extinct long ago.