
Brain Computer Interfaces Inch Closer to Mainstream - scholia
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/disruptions-no-words-no-gestures-just-your-brain-as-a-control-pad/
======
jared314
I'm still skeptical of BCIs being useful, to healthy people, for, at least,
another twenty years. I can't think of a single thing I could control with my
brain, that I couldn't do more accurately, and consistently, with my hands,
voice, etc. But, I cannot tell if my perception is stunted by my current life
experience, the quality of existing sensing technologies, or an actual lack of
application.

~~~
saulrh
One simple example where a good BCI could beat hands and voice every time:
window switching. No more task bar, no more start menu, no more alt-tab or
window previews or virtual desktops. Just think "firefox" and you get firefox.

If you want an even more hyperbolic what-if, to give you an idea of what we
hope is so much as possible, a _really_ could BCI could do away with the
concept of windows entirely. Your eyes can only see one thing at a time and
the computer can move information to your eyes faster than your eyes can move
information to the computer, so just present the user with information as they
think about wanting to observe it.

~~~
themgt
I'm highly skeptical. I don't think "I am going to move my fingers around to
press and hold the command button and press the tab button one or more times
until I get to firefox". My brain already autopilots desires into physical
output.

EEG is a joke, and it's never explained how exactly BCI is going to work. If I
switch to Firefox when I think it, then I would have annoyingly switched over
multiple times when writing this comment. If it's something more complicated
then that, then what is the generic metaphor my mind learns to app-switch
that's simpler than the current one my brain performs using my fingers?

I believe BCI absolutely can and will be the future of computing interfaces,
but there's no way that simply "mapping" the brain is going to let us turn
desires into actions more efficiently via digital telepathy than our existing
high-res interfaces with our bodies - there's a lot of groundwork that still
needs to be covered.

To put it another way, if you could build software to accurately describe
"what information a user wants to observe", you'd likely win a combo Nobel
prize in neuroscience, philosophy and AI.

~~~
saulrh
I'm not disagreeing with that. As I said, "even more hyperbolic what-if". Call
it the same kind of science fiction that people were writing about smartphones
in the 60's: a kind of general direction that far overshoots reality in many
ways but which is hopefully not entirely wrong.

As for intentionality, your brain already handles that for you. I mean, I'm
almost certain that you can imagine walking out the front door of your home
without actually doing it. Same thing applies.

I don't know the exact details of the mechanisms, but I have an overview. One
technique is to have the user associate some rare signal, like thinking the
word "chair" repeatedly, with an action, and let the user learn to use that
signal quickly in the same way that you've learned to use command-tab. This is
mostly done by tracking changes in blood oxygenation using infrared sensors or
fMRI. Another technique is to tap into the user's motor cortex completely
blindly, show the user the output, and let neuroplasticity[1] take care of the
rest; this works _astonishingly_ well, with monkeys being able to "quickly
learn to voluntarily control the firing rates of individual and multiple
neurons" and directly control robotic arms [2].

1: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity> 2:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain–computer_interface#Early_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain–computer_interface#Early_work)

------
toisanji
The examples they gave are EEG readers which have terrible resolution. There
will need to be muchhigher resolution devices that can read more neural
activity before we have anything close to mainstream BMI devices.

~~~
cinquemb
Part of me wonders if one could use bio-nano-sensors[1] to amplify the
electrochemical signals from the brain(or body) so they can be picked up
easier or transformed into some other kind of language to be processed
better/more efficiently (through an EEG reader or receiver of some kind).

[1][https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=...](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6374200)

~~~
figital
Wish I hadn't ran out of time for this ... <https://vimeo.com/mindhead>. You
can easily get to "on/off" with equipment like this. The rest depends on
training protocols and the software design needed to implement them.

~~~
cinquemb
This is pretty cool, though probably a bit obtrusive for consumer
applications. Also it doesn't look like the signal strength is that strong or
varying (from what i can see in the video) which would make it pretty hard to
try to fit equations that would match a specific actions induced from the
brain.

------
qdot76367
And in smaller publications, warnings about how hackers can access your brain
waves!

[http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/04/28/brain-hacking-
re...](http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/04/28/brain-hacking-researchers-
fear-attacks-on-the-mind/)

Whole article behind paywall, and also above the fold of the business section
of the Sunday April 28th SF Chronicle. Good times.

Also, as the maintainers of some reverse engineered EEG drivers, I'm in
agreement with pretty much every other pessimist. They're toys. Fun toys, but
toys. We're waaaaaaaay off from the cool control shit, especially at a mass
marketable consumer level, but believe me, there's gonna be tons of cool
research shit on the way there.

------
donniezazen
How much of Brain Computer Interfaces is biology and how much of it is
computing on a rough scale? Does anyone know of any good books to gain more
knowledge in this field? I study biology as an undergrad and this sounds very
interesting.

~~~
Nelkins
It's definitely more computing than biology, but it does depend slightly on
the type of signal acquisition device. You have to know more about the
underlying biological processes of the brain if you are recording from an
implanted microelectrode array rather an an EEG cap.

Here is a decent resource, but specific to one BCI research platform:
[http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Guide-Brain-Computer-
Interfa...](http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Guide-Brain-Computer-Interfacing-
BCI2000/dp/1849960917)

Reading doctoral theses on this subject is also a great way to learn more.
There are at least a few online that do a great job of explaining BCIs from
the ground up.

~~~
donniezazen
Thank you so much.

------
dhughes
Does anyone remember Mind Bowling?

It was a biofeedback bowling game, I'm not even sure what decade it was
released.

