3 ms·

I'd agree that "I know kung fu" style memory alteration is probably off the table for the foreseeable future but we've already got people manipulating devices j

I'd agree that "I know kung fu" style memory alteration is probably off the table for the foreseeable future but we've already got people manipulating devices just via sensing caps. The implications of this for prosthetics seem like fairly simple extensions of known techniques

AndrewKemendo 10y ago
Not really. Non invasive bci through fmri is basically about mapping activation function in certain regions to some other computing function. The actual computer actuation is only as coupled with the activation as you can get from related measurement after giving the user a prompt. Oh and by the way it's not IO it's just one way. tDCS on the flip side is a very unknown, poorly targeted way to get some activation but only to certain levies and nobody really knows how or if it works consistently. The research jury is split so far. Invasive Deep brain stimulation is definitely better, however it's still solely used to create general simulation in order to prevent tremors and other maladies. The only thing I've seen recently that gives me some excitement from an input protective was work recently done by Ramirez and Liu on implanting memory into a mouse brain. That was a single study though and was very very narrow.
- cinquemb 10y ago
  >Not really. Non invasive bci through fmri is basically about mapping activation function in certain regions to some other computing function. The actual computer actuation is only as coupled with the activation as you can get from related measurement after giving the user a prompt. Oh and by the way it's not IO it's just one way. I think the better (spacial/temporal) we can understand how stimulus looks like from a electromagnetic perspective for a given brain, we can make some good estimates on what the em field would look like some time t, afterwords. I've done something like this with eeg using beamforming techniques with a sufficient number of leads and comparing brain states with pre and post fmri of same tasks while providing feedback visually or auditory every 1-2 seconds (which is a really long time). I also think this could actually get us pretty far (concerning decision making and task allocation) if we could record in environments not constrained to the lab and factor in the variables to sufficient degree that confound eeg typically by including gyroscopes/accelerometers/thermometers/drift in impedance (factoring out fluctuations in em field due to temperature/conductivity of scalp via sweat/head movements), or even environments that are pretty much stationary like gaming (also where the inputs are more observable by time-stamping screen with controller inputs to sensors on the brain). >Invasive Deep brain stimulation is definitely better, however it's still solely used to create general simulation in order to prevent tremors and other maladies. Saw Prof. Arnd Pralle, University at Buffalo[0], give a talk at MIT in May on his work on tetherless magnetothermal deep brain neuro-stimulation to modulate motor behavior in awake, unrestrained mice. Was pretty cool and got me thinking the same could be done with designed photonic thermal systems. I wish this field had as much money going into it as the folks in the compsci depts, esp with focusing on hardware/tooling for getting measurements vs all else going on in the neurofield. [0] http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~apralle/ http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~apralle/
internaut 10y ago
If I'm reading this correctly, DARPA is working on IKKF. http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-04-27-2 http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-04-27-2

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

Not really. Non invasive bci through fmri is basically about mapping activation function in certain regions to some other computing function. The actual computer actuation is only as coupled with the activation as you can get from related measurement after giving the user a prompt. Oh and by the way it's not IO it's just one way. tDCS on the flip side is a very unknown, poorly targeted way to get some activation but only to certain levies and nobody really knows how or if it works consistently. The research jury is split so far. Invasive Deep brain stimulation is definitely better, however it's still solely used to create general simulation in order to prevent tremors and other maladies. The only thing I've seen recently that gives me some excitement from an input protective was work recently done by Ramirez and Liu on implanting memory into a mouse brain. That was a single study though and was very very narrow.

cinquemb 10y ago
>Not really. Non invasive bci through fmri is basically about mapping activation function in certain regions to some other computing function. The actual computer actuation is only as coupled with the activation as you can get from related measurement after giving the user a prompt. Oh and by the way it's not IO it's just one way. I think the better (spacial/temporal) we can understand how stimulus looks like from a electromagnetic perspective for a given brain, we can make some good estimates on what the em field would look like some time t, afterwords. I've done something like this with eeg using beamforming techniques with a sufficient number of leads and comparing brain states with pre and post fmri of same tasks while providing feedback visually or auditory every 1-2 seconds (which is a really long time). I also think this could actually get us pretty far (concerning decision making and task allocation) if we could record in environments not constrained to the lab and factor in the variables to sufficient degree that confound eeg typically by including gyroscopes/accelerometers/thermometers/drift in impedance (factoring out fluctuations in em field due to temperature/conductivity of scalp via sweat/head movements), or even environments that are pretty much stationary like gaming (also where the inputs are more observable by time-stamping screen with controller inputs to sensors on the brain). >Invasive Deep brain stimulation is definitely better, however it's still solely used to create general simulation in order to prevent tremors and other maladies. Saw Prof. Arnd Pralle, University at Buffalo[0], give a talk at MIT in May on his work on tetherless magnetothermal deep brain neuro-stimulation to modulate motor behavior in awake, unrestrained mice. Was pretty cool and got me thinking the same could be done with designed photonic thermal systems. I wish this field had as much money going into it as the folks in the compsci depts, esp with focusing on hardware/tooling for getting measurements vs all else going on in the neurofield. [0] http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~apralle/ http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~apralle/

internaut 10y ago

If I'm reading this correctly, DARPA is working on IKKF. http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-04-27-2 http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-04-27-2