

Scientists extract images directly from brain (2008) - theforay
http://www.pinktentacle.com/2008/12/scientists-extract-images-directly-from-brain/

======
a-priori
What they're doing is a high-resolution fMRI scan of V1 (primary visual
cortex), a region of the brain that shows a "retinotopic map" of the visual
field. It's been known for a while that it's possible to reconstruct an image
from V1 activation. What this research shows is that fMRI imaging is now
detailed enough to do this non-invasively.

Also, something cool about this research, and also a bit scary, is that it's
also known that this region is activated by visual recall (a quick search
revealed this:
[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=48...](http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=48072)).
I'm not sure if anyone has ever tried to reproduce an image from V1 activation
during visual recall, so I don't know if it would be a coherent image. My
guess is it would though, in which case an fMRI scan could detect an image of
an "N" if you asked the person to picture the letter.

Pretty cool.

~~~
brlewis
I really think if a coherent image had been made from visual recall, that news
would travel fast.

------
ryanwaggoner
My big question would be whether the patterns that they're detecting in the
brain are similar for different people? For example, if I imagine an apple, do
my "brain patterns" resemble someone else's when they also think of an apple?
If not, seems like training this device would be a pain in the ass, because
you'd have to do it for each person. But if so...imagine a huge resource of
patterns for different thoughts, feelings, mental pictures, etc. Hopefully
this comment makes sense...

~~~
joeyo
In general the patterns are the same and the brain areas involved are the same
but there is definitely individual variability, too. There is probably much
less individual variability in visual cortex than, say, language
representation areas (consider English speakers vs Spanish speakers) but there
is likely enough that they have to retrain their algorithms for each
individual to achieve optimum discrimination.

~~~
Asmodeus
There is indeed enough variation. I unfortunately can't find the link, but
they went further and had people imagine something like the letter 'n,' and of
the whopping eight people they tested, one came out completely garbled, even
after training.

Also, I suspect that variation increases with abstractness, so it will almost
certainly be impossible to extract high level thought without extensive
cooperation.

For example, the brain state that the word 'conciousness' invokes in me is
going to be entirely different from you because I have different associations,
examples, knowledge, and general representation.

Now try to extract an entire sentence without training first. Have fun!

------
Salvatore
On one hand, this is great. It will lead to new technology which will
inevitably lead to better video games.

On the other hand, this provides the opportunity for total loss of privacy.
Forget freedom of speech, people might start to attack the freedom to think
certain thoughts. In other news, China and Iran are thrilled at this new
science.

~~~
mingdingo
The first thing I thought when I saw this was:

"Oh shit- now nothing is private."

Don't get me wrong- it's amazing stuff, and I'm all for the advancements it
can bring. But the mind really is the last bastion of privacy in our
increasingly policed world.

Think about it:

1) When you make a call, it can be logged and recorded.

2) When you walk into a bank (or a million other locations), your actions are
on camera.

3) When you visit a site, your IP address, as well as other information, is
logged.

Almost everything is monitored.

Granted the advancement of technology has brought FAR more benefits than
costs, but sometimes I wonder what it would be like to live in the 1800s, when
you could do something and not have to worry about your actions being "logged"
to some eternal database.

Of course, it's fairly easy to control actions. Don't send really personal
stuff via email, don't scratch your crotch in front of a security camera. But
when it comes to thoughts, it's a different story. Try not thinking about
something, and you'll find you can't do it.

I'm sure every single person in this world has had thoughts he/she would not
want to reveal.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. It will probably be a while before we have to
seriously worry about the implications of this technology.

~~~
randallsquared
_Try not thinking about something, and you'll find you can't do it._

People say this, but I find it's not true. Just think of something _else_.
Works most of the time.

~~~
dasil003
It works until they can read the subconscious and can detect the thought
you're trying not to think.

------
mquander
Not to impugn the author's trustworthiness, but this is so astounding to me
that I find it somewhat incredible. Does anyone have an English-language news
source for this?

The "extracted" pictures are an order of magnitude clearer than I would have
thought possible.

~~~
sho
Your skepticism is commendable, but the pictures are real. Here's the paper:

[http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273%2808%2900958-...](http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273%2808%2900958-6)

~~~
mquander
That's fantastic, and the full text is available there too. Thanks.

------
mixmax
Seems like it's a neural network trying to decipher the inner workings of
another neural network. How amazingly cool is that ?

~~~
dan_the_welder
Recursively cool.

------
bd
There were interesting comments about this when it was posted here before:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=394826>

------
profquail
I think if I could see any invention in my lifetime, I'd want to see that
knowledge-uploader thing from 'The Matrix'. Imagine how much you could learn!
Especially before you were too old to use it...

------
bjelkeman-again
The source for this article is a 404 page. (Translated via Google)
[http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chu...](http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chunichi.co.jp%2Farticle%2Fnational%2Fnews%2FCK2008121102000053.html&sl=ja&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

------
Arun2009
Questions:

\- Will the fMRI patterns for the same image be the same for two different
people?

\- When I think of images, the vision I have in my mind are not as vivid as
when I see them directly. Given this, will the fMRI patterns be the same in
both cases?

------
TrevorJ
I can see this being amazingly handy in the (far) future in terms of interface
navigation and search. Just picture the icon of the program you want to
launch, or the stock photo you are trying to find and boom.

~~~
profquail
That's already available, to some degree:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotiv_Systems>

(There are others as well, but I understand this is one of the best commercial
products as of now).

~~~
TrevorJ
Ah, yes I am familiar with this. I've used a similar device during some
biofeedback treatment. The leap with the imaging tech is that it is a 1:1
correlation. As far as I am aware the other tech still relies on mapping cues
from the brain that aren't directly 1:1 For example, boosting your high beta
waves moves your game character forwards, etc. With the imaging technology,
you don't have to perform mental gymnastics, you just "picture" the image you
are after and the like.

------
dinkumthinkum
This should be like front page news. This is something many would have not
thought possible. It also poses many problems non-materialists that do not
subscribe to a weird hand-wavy coincidentalism.

~~~
philwelch
I don't see how this should pose problems to non-materialists. There's no
reason the image can't be formed in the brain before or during transmission to
the immaterial mind, for instance.

I'm not a dualist by any stretch but to claim this as evidence for materialism
is mistaken.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
No, you may not understand materialism. Sure, as I already said, if you
subscribe to some weird coincidentalist view maybe not but for those not
grasping at straws this removes a lot from a dualist conception and it even
further shows it as an unneccessary hypothesis.

~~~
philwelch
Not at all: proving that the brain forms images from sensory inputs only
proves that the brain _forms images from sensory inputs_. It's a tenable
dualist position that the material brain handles sense perception while the
immaterial mind handles higher level consciousness and thought. In fact, the
body was always classically assumed to handle most of sense perception even
before this research.

I understand materialism just fine. But this doesn't prove materialism.

------
onreact-com
Hooray! So now I can download the porn images I saw elsewhere back to my
laptop directly from my brain! This way you get all the porn mags for free!

