Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Technology

Device Reads Messages From Surface of the Brain 156

Posted by samzenpus
from the I-want-to-know-what-you're-thinking dept.
Al writes "Technology Review has a story about a start-up company that has developed a more-accurate and less-invasive way to read a patient's thoughts. Neurolutions, based in St Louis, has developed a small implanted device that translates signals recorded from the surface of the brain into computer commands. The device, which is less invasive than implants and more accurate than scalp electrodes, uses a grid of electrodes placed directly on the surface of the brain to monitor electrical activity. This technology is currently used to find the origin of seizures in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy before surgery. But the company says it could also help paralyzed patients control a computer and perhaps prosthetic limbs using their thoughts. Tests involving more than 20 patients have shown that people can quickly learn to move a cursor on a computer screen using their brain activity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Device Reads Messages From Surface of the Brain

Comments Filter:
  • If they get a cursor to follow my eyes i'll wield the scalpel myself!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Qzukk (229616)

      "Focus-follows-brain" will hopefully be followed by "do what I meant, not what I said" ;)

      • by siloko (1133863)

        "Focus-follows-brain" will hopefully be followed by "do what I meant, not what I said"

        or the your mouse pointer crashing through the side of your monitor as you try and catch a glimpse of the new post-doc . . .

    • by CarpetShark (865376) on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @07:37PM (#28203621)

      If they get a cursor to follow my eyes i'll wield the scalpel myself!

      I hope you don't twitch under extreme pain. Could end up in some kind of endlessly recursive feedback loop. Which would hurt. Muchly.

      • by dimeglio (456244)

        You know, this makes sense to me. The same way we can control a car by having the brain control the limbs which drive it, it would be possible to develop new pathways that would make the devices attached to the electrode network actually act just like limbs. Only thing need would be some kind of feedback system to instruct the brain that something is ok or not such as if we clicked on pr0n when we shouldn't be.

        Looking forward to using an extra 5% of my under-used brain. The only problem is that electrode on

      • by Jurily (900488)

        I hope you don't twitch under extreme pain. Could end up in some kind of endlessly recursive feedback loop. Which would hurt. Muchly.

        You're lucky this wasn't my laptop keyboard.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If computers can be controlled by thoughts, why is a cursor needed at all?

      Surely it's possible to interact with the controls directly through thought.

    • by maxume (22995)

      I'm pretty sure people are working on cursors that follow your eyes, but the crazy bastards I heard about were just using cameras pointed at the eyes.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by physburn (1095481)
      Except your eyes don't sit staring at one spot even when you think your staring at one spot, your eyes continuously flicker around and scan the general direction your looking at in order to build up a image of the world. I think there has already been several machines that read where your looking from the reflection off your eyes, with middling results. In general people just can't hold the stare, even if the machine can average out the microscans of the eyes.
      • I think the real problem would be reading. Just look where your cursor is while you are reading this. I suspect it's not right in front of your eyes, as it would block the text.
  • For a lot of Internet uses it'd just read a one word message.

    "Vacant".

    • by Thing 1 (178996)
      Fucking Slashdot, I can't see the header of any messages in this or several other threads. Some work. What the fuck????
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by armareum (925270)
        They borked classic view to force you to move to the new beta view. I had your problem, and moved over to fix it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Thing 1 (178996)
      Fucking Slashdot, all the green-background headers are invisible, due to being white-background for all parts except the initial "curve at top left". Any orange (yro.slashdot.org) or purple (games.slashdot.org) pages show up just fine. This has been happening for over a week, now, on Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP. The "workaround" is to highlight the header, so I can see what the text says... Or, Ctrl+A to mark the whole page, and read in inverse. Yay!!!
      • by Faylone (880739)
        Works fine for me and I'm also using Firefox 3.0.10 on XP
        • Works fine for me and I'm also using Firefox 3.0.10 on XP

          Haven't seen a message header on /. in days. And I'm also using 3.0.10 on XP.

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Bai jie (653604)
            I'd mod this offtopic, but I can't see the header to see if it is already.
      • by Kugrian (886993)

        If using the Classic Discussion System, coming to the article via the RSS feed produces the above effect. A work-around is to click on the links from the homepage instead (this lets you view the pages as Classic).

  • Cool (Score:3, Funny)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland.yahoo@com> on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @07:12PM (#28203273) Homepage Journal

    More stories like this please.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Don't worry, this is Slashdot. It'll be reposted once this month, again 5 months from now, and again 3 years from now :)

    • Re:Cool (Score:5, Informative)

      by Idiomatick (976696) on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @09:58PM (#28204827)
      Offtopic: You know ~ is already in use to elongate words. Or make them sound more musical.
      ex. Hi~
      Hm~~~~~

      The origin is Japanese where a double vowel word like konpyuutaa is written as konpyu~ta~ (written in japanese character of course). Written to drag it out you would write one really long tilde but since the advent of computers generally people use a chain of them together. Also of note that you might be interested in from japanese culture. Japanese people often end sentences with a ;; or even shorter ; to represent a type of sadness or confusion( ;_; is a sad emoticon in japan and ^^;; is confusion (sweat drops)), this is possible since the semicolon doesn't exist in Japanese. As well some people use ^ at the end of a line for happiness (from ^_^). And // for.... ughh or you are an idiot (from -_-//). There are other various sentence endings that take part of the emoticon and attach it to the end to refer to different things. And japan has hundreds of different kaomoji(emoticons) unlike the 10 we might use. And so you don't need to ask, there isn't to my knowledge a line ending for sarcasm. I think it'd defeat the purpose of being sarcastic anyways :P
  • by sakdoctor (1087155) on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @07:12PM (#28203281) Homepage

    When this becomes a standard human input device...I don't want it. How will you explain when your browser suddenly navigates to your favourite porn site.

    • by vaporland (713337)
      That depends on what part of your body you connect it to...
    • by glwtta (532858)
      When this becomes a standard human input device...I don't want it.

      Surely this is a human output device, at this point? Once it becomes a human input device, I think you will want it even less.
    • At least you'd have both hands free for once.
  • by piojo (995934) on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @07:14PM (#28203315)

    We can already let blind people see by connecting cameras to their tongues. If this sort of technique becomes easier/safer, it could be used for any sort of human/machine interface. Prosthetic limbs are only the beginning...

    I hope this does not have nasty side effects like increased chances of tumors...

  • by Co0Ps (1539395) on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @07:15PM (#28203323)
    Non invasive brain interfaces is nothing new. Here's a video of a HL2 mod where you're using your mind to pick up objects and throw them at other players [youtube.com]. The question is if the mind reading is accurate enough to actually control a mouse pointer efficiently or reliably start macros (voice recognition style).
    • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @07:17PM (#28203357) Homepage Journal

      It's hardly "non-invasive".. they have to open your skull to implant it.

      • by Co0Ps (1539395)
        Ah.. I read "less invasive" as "non invasive".
        • by QuantumG (50515) *

          Ya, I think the biggest problem is that the researchers are still in the "look, we can interface!" stage of development.. next comes the "yes, but how good can we make it?" stage, this is the stage that cochlear implants is up to.. until DNI gets to that we'll continue to see "move the cursor" bullshit.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by DittoBox (978894)

        Don't worry about Lamarr, she's been debeaked and is completely harmless!

    • by venicebeach (702856) on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @07:23PM (#28203441) Homepage Journal
      The signals in that video are recorded from the scalp. Basically when you filter the electrical signals from the brain through the skull you lose a lot of spatial resolution. Given that spatial maps are one important way the brain encodes information having the electrodes actually on the surface of the brain makes a huge difference in the amount of information you have access to.

      That said, this is not really a new technology, merely a new application of electrocorticography [wikipedia.org]. Non-invasive it is not, since it involves opening up the skull. It's only "less invasive" compared with poking an electrode deep into the brain.
      • Non-invasive it is not, since it involves opening up the skull.

        Whine, whine, whine.

        Clearly the real question is, can we combine this brain reading tech with a Reprap v5, to produce monsters from the id? ;)

    • by toppavak (943659)
      "non-invasive" is a very relative term here considering you still have to crack open a patient's skull to get the electrode array in. It is, however, less invasive than the electrodes used for deep brain stimulation that are implanted in the grey matter itself. I wonder how long these arrays last before they succumb to biofouling [wikipedia.org] and scar tissue formation.
  • How much... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @07:20PM (#28203399)
    How much longer till we can figure out how our brain "codes" things then exploit it for our own benefit? Just think about it, custom-made drugs to make it seem like you are flying, fighting a dragon, more epic than any video game imaginable, all while being perfectly controlled with little to no side effects. Or take a pill and have the entire library of congress memorized. I wonder how much longer this will take.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Co0Ps (1539395)
      As we have yet to have identified exactly how single neurons work, I doubt that the point where we can begin to reverse engineer the brain will be soon. And when we do I doubt that affecting the brains experiences or information will be done with drugs, as drugs can only target large regions. Maybe by hooking electronics directly onto the nerve system (matrix style)?
      • Do we actually have to identify how the brain works for such uses, however? Note that so far research has been less in trying to interpret signals from the brain, or feeding it immediately recognizable signals. Rather, you're supposed to use the flexibility of your brain to deal with unfamiliar signals. In other words, train the brain to deal with information fed in the format that our existing systems can easily produce.

    • How much longer till we can figure out how our brain "codes" things then exploit it for our own benefit?

      We have already begun to do this. For example, understanding the binocular cues for depth perception have given us 3D movies that provide us with the illusion of depth. Providing input to the the brain directly may eventually be more efficient than presenting sensory information through our sensory apparatus, but probably not for a long time. For providing fictional experiences I think it's still goi

    • by tool462 (677306)

      I'm impressed that you came up with a list of applications and NONE of them included any combination of "sex" or "supermodels".

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Or slip a pill on that hot blond girl's drink and activate her brain implants to think I am a mix of James Bond+Sean Connery+Denzel Washington+Brad Pitt, and that she MUST do anything to copulate with me RIGHT AWAY... Or better than a pill: get some malicious (no pun intended) code through an open bluetooth or WiFi connection port on her brain implant's communication interface and make her get obsessed with me... endless possibilities...

    • Re:How much... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FiloEleven (602040) on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @09:30PM (#28204625)

      The way the brain works makes such experiences nearly impossible to encode and certainly impossible with drugs, as another poster pointed out. If we take "drugs" to include "nanomachines targeting the brain and disguised as a pill" then we enter the realm of the merely highly improbable. The machines would have to collectively be smart enough to override signals from and to the body while simultaneously generating the desired experience.

      Another possibility would be a single device at the top of the spinal column and networked with lots of processing power, like a wireless Matrix or the Vertebrane system [marshallbrain.com] from Manna. This too requires advanced nanotech to implant, as it must splice every nerve in the spinal column plus the optic and aural nerves, and so is also highly improbable to occur at all, and certainly not for nearly a hundred years unless the Singularity frea--er, folks are right.

      Given all that, the experiences you speak of (flying, fighting a dragon) could happen, but doing the "I know kung-fu!" thing is impossible due to the nature of consciousness. If you want to learn something, you're going to have to spend the time to learn it. Reshaping synapse connections and brainwave patterns to implant memories requires godlike knowledge of the individual's brain state and history. Let's not forget that we are messy meat machines (if machines we are) whose sense of self and memory is only infinitesimally less mysterious now as it has always been. Faking an external world and letting the brain experience it, hard as it is, is orders of magnitude simpler than fabricating a past experience, especially an intellectual one such as memorizing the LOC, out of whole cloth.

      Sorry I'm such a party pooper =(

      • by EdIII (1114411) *

        but doing the "I know kung-fu!" thing is impossible due to the nature of consciousness. If you want to learn something, you're going to have to spend the time to learn it. Reshaping synapse connections and brainwave patterns to implant memories requires godlike knowledge of the individual's brain state and history. Let's not forget that we are messy meat machines (if machines we are) whose sense of self and memory is only infinitesimally less mysterious now as it has always been. Faking an external world an

        • by thepotoo (829391)

          He has not contradicted himself. We know very little about the brain, but everything we know indicates that the arrangement of synapses and even neurons themselves is different in different individuals. It is literally impossible to make a single drug that can create new memories for everyone. In time, a nano-bot type of thing might allow for a drug tailored to the individual, but such a thing would be far too expensive and difficult to engineer in my lifetime. (I can't even envision how such a system w

          • by EdIII (1114411) *

            It is literally impossible to make a single drug that can create new memories for everyone. In time, a nano-bot type of thing might allow for a drug tailored to the individual, but such a thing would be far too expensive and difficult to engineer in my lifetime. (I can't even envision how such a system would work. Most axons are put in place during the early years in life, and are immovable, limiting you to synapses for these neurons.

            A single drug in the traditional sense, probably. In the future, every "t

            • by thepotoo (829391)

              I'm a bit busy for a detailed response, but let me clarify impossible: what I meant was that it would be more practical to try a different solution (robot body, emulate brain in software). While alchemy is technically possible, it is effectively impossible because it's cheaper to just mine the damned gold.

              The "pins" system is precisely how it works, however there is much synaptic plasticity in areas outside the spinal cord (Schwab factor prevents axon growth there). So you could learn to use an "I know Ku

              • by thepotoo (829391)
                I forgot to note that the "I know Kung-Fu" suit would have a response time of ~.5 to 1 second, because you need to think "block punch", the implant needs to translate it into the proper signal to send, and push that signal out to your arm. Subconscious processes tend to be faster, so you'd never be able to defeat someone who had learned Kung-Fu the natural way.
        • You have kind of contradicted yourself there. If we only know an infinitesimal small amount about how the brain works, it is kind of hard to definitely state the nature of consciousness.

          On the contrary, we know a decent amount about how the brain works at a high level (brainwave patterns) and at the low level (neurons). What I wrote was that our sense of self and memory are poorly understood. In other words, we can see electrochemical waves flowing through the brain, and we can sometimes correlate changes in brain activity with physical or mental activity. However, the mental activity is only coarsely understood: your brain imagining an elephant looks very similar to your brain imaginin

          • by EdIII (1114411) *

            My primary issue was the use of the word impossible. I always like impossible to be proven, since it is such a striking statement about what we can and cannot do. I felt you contradicted yourself since you seemed to indicate that your understanding of the nature of consciousness is what allowed you to draw your conclusion of "impossible", and yet at the same time admit to a profoundly incomplete understanding of how the brain works.

            I was probably being too simple in explaining why I felt you were contradi

            • I understand your dislike of the word "impossible," as I tend to share it myself. I wish I knew a term that was better than "highly improbable" because it seems like that leaves a lot of wiggle room and doesn't carry enough weight when I intend to make a very strong statement. For now I stick with "impossible" and learn to be okay with the fact that I might be proven wrong. But I won't ;)

              I lack the ability to debate it with you since you clearly have more of an understanding than I do

              For what it's worth, I'm not so much trying to have a debate as to share the knowledge I've encountered and the conclu

      • Another possibility to fight dragons and stuff that I surprisingly missed (considering I have, ahem, privately experimented with it) could be a combination of drugs and primitive VR--that is, not much more advanced than what we can do today. With the right psychoactive substance, the user could be wearing sensors and standing in front of a big screen, though glasses would be nicer, and essentially playing a video game while the drug made him feel like he was actually there, man. I don't know if an ideal d

    • by smchris (464899)

      Strange Days, dude. I suppose it will be up to the CIA to get the squid to send. Then the technology will leak same as LSD.

    • Just think about it, custom-made drugs to make it seem like you are flying, fighting a dragon, more epic than any video game imaginable, all while being perfectly controlled with little to no side effects.

      There are a lot of drugs out there that don't get a user physically addicted, but the user instead develops a psychological addiction. The high they get is so good that, compared to normal life, they think they can't be happy without it.

      We already have clinics up and running for curing internet addiction, and we just have LCDs & CRTs. When we develop total-immersion technology, why would people bother ever returning to their cold, lonely, boring real lives, except when they run out of money to fuel thei

      • by Quothz (683368)

        For an example (yeah, I know it's fictional, but still)

        But still, it's fictional. Using a fictional character as anecdotal evidence to prove a point is three steps and a light breeze away from crazy. Don't do it.

        That said, I agree with you. I think Scott Adams said "the holodeck will be mankind's last invention".

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by maxume (22995)

          Nah, there will always be some group of rubes that values authentic experiences over the manufactured.

          Of course, by rubes, I don't really mean rubes.

    • by GWBasic (900357)

      How much longer till we can figure out how our brain "codes" things then exploit it for our own benefit? Just think about it, custom-made drugs to make it seem like you are flying, fighting a dragon, more epic than any video game imaginable, all while being perfectly controlled with little to no side effects. Or take a pill and have the entire library of congress memorized. I wonder how much longer this will take.

      Uhm, LSD? The controversy started when Timothy Leary tried to prove his hypothesis that LSD can invoke a religions experience.

      On a more serious note; there is a LOT of active research into psychoactive chemicals. There are over 200 known psychoactive chemicals, and the rate of discovery is increasing.

    • by sorak (246725)
      So, you're suggesting that we create a perfectly safe answer to LSD and then ask congress to legalize it? I'm putting that on the "not in my lifetime" list.
  • by DragonWriter (970822) on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @07:33PM (#28203571)

    Technology Review has a story about a start-up company that has developed a more-accurate and less-invasive way to read a patients thoughts.

    "More-accurate and less-invasive" is misleading, since the thing that it is "more accurate" than is not the same thing it is "less invasive" than. It is more accurate than the minimally-invasive electrodes-on-the-scalp method, and less-invasive than the more accurate electrodes-implanted-into-the-brain method.

    It is, likewise, less accurate than the electrodes-in-the-brain method, and more invasive than the electrodes-on-the-scalp method, so it would be as accurate (and as hyperbolic, in the opposite direction) as TFS to call it a "less-accurate and more-invasive" method as it was to call it a "more-accurate and less-invasive" method (simply switching which existing method it was compared to for accuracy and which it was compared to for invasiveness.)

    It would be most accurate (and not at all hyperbolic) to call it a method which is intermediate between two existing methods in terms of both accuracy and invasiveness.

    • by jrumney (197329)

      I also had trouble parsing this:

      a small implanted device that ... is less invasive than implants

      • I also had trouble parsing this:

        a small implanted device that ... is less invasive than implants

        That's because the summary was poor. What they meant was "a small device implanted on the surface of the brain that ... is less invasive than devices implanted deep in the brain".

    • by julesh (229690)

      "More-accurate and less-invasive" is misleading, since the thing that it is "more accurate" than is not the same thing it is "less invasive" than. It is more accurate than the minimally-invasive electrodes-on-the-scalp method, and less-invasive than the more accurate electrodes-implanted-into-the-brain method.

      The question I have at this point is, seeing as the only useful claim made for it (that patients can learn to control a cursor with it) has also been made for the electrodes-on-the-scalp approach, is w

  • old...again... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Old. Google up "Brain gate". Hell, even wired.com has had articles on this.

    And it is a bit misleading to say that moving a cursor accross a computer screen is the equivanlent to reading someones thoughts.

  • by icebike (68054) on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @07:36PM (#28203601)

    Quote:

    developed a small implanted device that translates signals recorded from the surface of the brain into computer commands. The device, which is less invasive than implants

    How's that again?

    I suppose I could break down read TFA.....

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Locke2005 (849178)
      Are they saying that electrodes implanted in your brain are less invasive then silicone implanted in your chest? What about a game controller integrated into breast implants -- man, you'd never be able to get me off of Mario Kart if I had some of those to play with!
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The potential abuses of this sort of device are many.

    * Policeman A to Policeman B: "Check this out! Just as fun as a Tazer, but no physical contact required!" (Points government-issued remote control at random passerby and presses button)

    * Prosecutor in courtroom to policeman on the witness stand: "And what was it about Mr. Jones which caused you to arrest him?" Policeman: "My government-issued Thought Interceptor Display showed me that he was *thinking* about robbing a bank. And, he also thought about

    • by vertinox (846076)

      Actually, I think the last scenario is the most likely. Who would you trust to write and verify correct code for a device which interfaced directly to your brain?

      This is why you need to learn to encrypt your thoughts.

      Though to tell you the truth I can only manage thinking in ROT13 before I get a headache.

  • does this have any interrogation use?

    • Damn You,

      Now my Cheney Corp Stock is worthless. The CEO was all over the national news promoting it before the IPO. I was banking on the big future demand for waterboarding and electroshock I haven't had such bad news since they asked for my AIG bonuses back. Well I still got my futures in Mustard Gas and shares in Blackwater.

  • by feepness (543479) on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @08:03PM (#28203915) Homepage

    Neurolutions, based in St Louis has developed a small implanted device that translates signals recorded from the surface of the brain into computer commands. The device, which is less invasive than implants and more accurate that scalp electrodes, uses a grid of electrodes placed directly on the surface of the brain to monitor electrical activity

    Awesome! They developed an implant which is less invasive than implants!

    Next up, a duck that quacks louder than a duck!

    • Thankfully I'm not the only person to have noticed that... I was beginning to lose faith in humanity, scrolling through the comments and not seeing anything about an implant less invasive than an implant...

  • by Arcturax (454188)

    This makes me think of the capped people in the Tripods trilogy.

    In the books, aliens had taken over earth and used these caps that melded a mesh into the head that would render people docile and subservient so they could be used as slaves.

    • by Zordak (123132)

      these caps that melded a mesh into the head that would render people docile and subservient so they could be used as slaves.

      So the aliens invented government entitlement programs?

  • i'm getting this as soon as they add drug simulation functionality.
  • What in all your reading of The Terminal Man [wikipedia.org], has ever given you the slightest impression that this device is a good idea?
  • by thammoud (193905)

    Am I the only one see truncated green border around the posts? I see this on my MAC and Linux machines. It started happening about a week ago.

    • by feepness (543479)
      Getting it here on XP + Firefox. Yeah, about a week.
    • by mcrbids (148650)

      No, but using FF 3 on Linux, there is no background for the titles.

      Makes it damned hard to see what the post is about without highlighting the header with a click-drag with the mouse.

      (sigh)

      Wouldn't it be nice if Slashdot editors used the O/S that they promote?

    • by adavies42 (746183)

      I see this on my MAC

      you read slashdot on your lipstick [wikipedia.org]? what's it run, netbsd?

    • by vertinox (846076)

      Am I the only one see truncated green border around the posts? I see this on my MAC and Linux machines. It started happening about a week ago.

      Yeah. I went into the /. user preferences and switched to "classic view" and it resolved that issue.

  • The device, which is less invasive than implants and more accurate that scalp electrodes, uses a grid of electrodes placed directly on the surface of the brain to monitor electrical activity.

    How is having to put an entire grid of electrodes on the surface of the brain less invasive than an implant?

  • "Less Invasive"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DynaSoar (714234) on Wednesday June 03, 2009 @08:39PM (#28204217) Journal

    Laying an electrocorticogram array (that's what they're using -- it's not new) on the surface of the brain requires removing a section of the scalp, skull and dura mater. There's nothing about it that's not invasive as well as dangerous. Single cortical or deep electrodes can be put in through very small drilled holes. The former requires a full neurosurgical suite/team. The latter can be done in a clinic visit if localization isn't critical, or else in a CT or MR scanner with no more invasive electrode technology than the clinic version. The draw back to implanted electrodes is that inserting them into proximity of the neurons of interest can cause them to die off immediately, and will cause them to die off eventually.

    Both are unnecessary for the application. In 1994 a researcher working at Radford University with Karl Pribram developed an EEG analysis program that could recognize various shapes, sizes and colors (various combinations thereof) of objects both seen and only internally visualized, with a 95% accuracy. Such accuracy among the many permutations of possible signals could very easily translate into control signals sent to another device. Fully designed but not built around this technology was such a control device intended to run an 8 stepper motor robotic arm using a standard parallel printer port. Since it rests on the scalp, an EEG electrode such as we used here is not invasive in the least. Well, the sticky glue electrode paste necessary to keep the electrode on and conducting for several hours tend to pull out hair, but that's annoying and slightly painful, but not invasive.

  • I tried this device one time. The only message it could read from the surface of my brain was "Squiggle"

  • As I understand it, the main problem with implants that receive signals is that a layer of defensive glial cells forms around electrodes left in the brain. These cells act as electrical insulators and decrease the strength of the signal that can be picked up. How does this grid system mitigate this problem?

  • rm -rf *

    Let's see how long their computer will last.

  • i propose calling mind-machine interface "Psionics". It's consistent with avionics and easier to say than protoculture.

This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.

Working...