Neuroscientists At MIT Developing DNI 126
coolphysco1010 wrote to discuss the possible development of a direct neural interface, ala 'The Matrix', that could eventually allow for instant object recognition. From the article: "Now, neuroscientists in the McGovern Institute at MIT have been able to decipher a part of the code involved in recognizing visual objects. Practically speaking, computer algorithms used in artificial vision systems might benefit from mimicking these newly uncovered codes ... In a fraction of a second, visual input about an object runs from the retina through increasingly higher levels of the visual stream, continuously reformatting the information until it reaches the highest purely visual level, the inferotemporal (IT) cortex. The IT cortex identifies and categorizes the object and sends that information to other brain regions."
No 12 monkeys (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately this was so long ago I cannot remember the magazine or relocate the article. But googling artificial vision shows a few parts of history and HOWSTUFFWORKS has a full set of details
http://health.howstuffworks.com/artificial-vision
Re:Matrix? (Score:2, Informative)
Well, actually the article focusses on intercepting the sensoric data and making sense of it. I believe scientists have for some time been able to make sense of the basic sensoric data; stuff like using a cat's eye to produce webcam quality images. This research seems directed at interpreting the signals at a much deeper level.
Though very interesting, it's still a one-way extraction process (ie. *not* synthesis) which is just completely unrelated to anything i saw in The Matrix, but I may have stumbled into an excuse to view that movie again
sorry to dash your hopes, but... (Score:5, Informative)
i am working on optical neuron-computer interfaces, and this is probably the most efficient and direct route for reading neurons. I know of researchers who can also stimulate neurons to fires via light, so in principle, we could build a complete neuroptical computers tomorrow... if neurons were not complete bastards to work with.
you see, they just dont like to stay place. where i research, they often build tiny fences to keep them in place, but even then, they go shooting theyre axons anywhere they feel, with no concern for the feelings of the researcher.
we also grow neurons on microchip surfaces, which allows for high speed and high resolution stimulation and reading of single neuron activity, but in two dimensions, which is excellent for retina etc.
but the neuron-chip or old fashioned neuron-electrode are hard to place, and optical reading of neurons still has bugs to sort out (id guess from 4-10 years more basic research). whenever you see these cool brainscan pics with MRI etc, remember theyre resolution is on the order of millimeters, and thats a lot of complexity lost.
http://www.biochem.mpg.de/mnphys/ [biochem.mpg.de] has a nice review of the problems involved, if you like hardcore solidstate chemistry, silicon physics, and neurobiology
Re:Just recordings (Score:5, Informative)
R. Quian Quiroga, L. Reddy, G. Kreiman, C. Koch & I. Fried Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the humanbrain. [caltech.edu] Nature (2005) 435, 1102-1107
It takes a fraction of a second to recognize a person or an object even when seen under strikingly different conditions. How such a robust, high-level representation is achieved by neurons in the human brain is still unclear. In monkeys, neurons in the upper stages of the ventral visual pathway respond to complex images such as faces and objects and show some degree of invariance to metric properties such as the stimulus size, position and viewing angle. We have previously shown that neurons in the human medial temporal lobe (MTL) fire selectively to images of faces, animals, objects or scenes. Here we report on a remarkable subset of MTL neurons that are selectively activated by strikingly different pictures of given individuals, landmarks or objects and in some cases even by letter strings with their names. These results suggest an invariant, sparse and explicit code, which might be important in the transformation of complex visual percepts into long-term and more abstract memories.
Re:sorry to dash your hopes, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No 12 monkeys (Score:4, Informative)
The article, as well as the feasibility of Dr. Dobelle's (who has died in 2004) research, are sketchy at best. Apply truckload of salt.
Re:sorry to dash your hopes, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's about time! (Score:2, Informative)
link [seeingwithsound.com]
other link [brown.edu]
But yes, with the technology presented in the article, I suppose one could even cure blinds that have a damaged visual cortex.
Re:Sweet mother of brain implants. (Score:3, Informative)
If the electrodes could be improved, with work like that of David Edell at http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/research/npp/sow
Surprisingly, the implants for artifical hearing work very well: having the auditory nerve laid out, low frequency to high frequency, along the bony tube of the cochlea helps localize the current to just the nerves you want to hit with each electrode.
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Informative)
Every visual neuroscientist, ever, has been working on "deciphering part of the code involved in recognizing visual objects." Poggio and DiCarlo's contribution is mostly that they were able to record from a large number of neurons simultaneously in the inferotemporal cortex (IT). It's a logical (but interesting, to be sure) progression of work that has been done for decades in IT -- most of that work done elsewhere.
Neural prosthetics and DNI are the bullshit that people trot out to make neuroscience interesting to the public. It's worth pointing out that neither of the actual named scientists in this work raise the possibility, and in fact, other than the abstract, there's nothing that even hints at the idea. These guys aren't working on a DNI. They're doing basic science. Years, decades down the road, some engineers might take the work that built on Poggio and DiCarlo's work and turn it into a DNI. Or at least, we can so hope.
Name a university, and I can guarantee that the odds are that they'll have some basic science research underway with as much potential for the betterment of society as this stuff. So when you say "kudos to MIT" like this, remember that you're praising their PR department, not their scientists.
it's not DNI at all (Score:2, Informative)
We have non-invasive signal injection technology (Score:3, Informative)
We already have something called transcranial magnetic stimulation. See:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnum
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/vision/medical-vision
http://www.biomag.hus.fi/tms/ [biomag.hus.fi]
http://www.mp.uni-tuebingen.de/mp/index.php?id=94 [uni-tuebingen.de]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magneti
http://pni.unibe.ch/TMS.htm [unibe.ch]