4 ms·

continued... As a neurobiologist/electrophysiologist I suspected this random crackling is what it would sound like, since that's what activity from my cultured

continued... As a neurobiologist/electrophysiologist I suspected this random crackling is what it would sound like, since that's what activity from my cultured neurons sounds like. Any good neuro/psych student should remember this Nobel prize winning Hubel & Weisel experiment: https://youtu.be/8VdFf3egwfg https://youtu.be/8VdFf3egwfg I think this approach to synthesizing music from neural activity is completely misguided. But there are a few tweaks that might salvage the project... 1. First, they need to focus on the output of far fewer neurons. I know ya'll are experts in machine learning-type neural nets - the current "CellF" setup would be like sending the weights of an untrained 10k-node neural net to your laptop speakers, and just looping over those weights MCMC style. I think they would be better served to isolate the output a few neurons and translate those activation patterns into prefabricated musical samples. For example if the neuron fires at 60 Hz, the sample on MIDI channel 1 is activated (or something like that). continuing...

subroutine 9y ago
2. I get they are experimental musicians and composers chomping at the bit to finally play their finest arcane musique tintinnabulations. But they should first try to provide simple, structured musical inputs (repetitive drum taps would be the best, or square waves of particular frequencies; but at the very least simple repetitive melodies). At least until they can determine if these neurons are reacting in any predictable way to the microelectrode inputs. In one of the videos it basically looks like they mic'd up a petri dish on stage with a bunch of avant garde musicians working their hardest. That's actually pretty hilarious. Anyway, they should hold off on that until after they figure out whether these 'trans' neurons can even hear them. 3. They should try to train these neurons. Instead of microarray dishes though, I'd use optogenetics. From my experience it's much easier to evoke predictable signals using fiber optical input. It would be best to pass their instruments through a computer program though, that translated their sounds into pulse frequencies known to induce synaptic potentiation or synaptic depression. Currently, they are just adding noise to an already noisy system. All that said, this is still a cool project. And FWIW, they are much better neuroscientists than I am a musician.
svantana 9y ago
> I think this approach to synthesizing music from neural activity is completely misguided. Perhaps I am overly cynical, but I suspect the artist himself knew it would produce noise basically, but it doesn't matter because this is the type of thing that gets attention and that's the real currency in art. Similarly, there was an analog synth module that came out a while back that was driven by radioactive decay [1]. Both of these could easily be simulated by a few lines of code and nobody could tell the difference. http://www.factmag.com/2017/01/16/geiger-counter-synth-module-video/ http://www.factmag.com/2017/01/16/geiger-counter-synth-modul...
- subroutine 9y ago
  Yeah I agree. I think he achieved his goal, for sure. Somewhere between the induction of pluripotent cells and plating these stem cells on an MEA dish for neuron differentiation I forgot this guy was preparing an art performance piece.

subroutine 9y ago

2. I get they are experimental musicians and composers chomping at the bit to finally play their finest arcane musique tintinnabulations. But they should first try to provide simple, structured musical inputs (repetitive drum taps would be the best, or square waves of particular frequencies; but at the very least simple repetitive melodies). At least until they can determine if these neurons are reacting in any predictable way to the microelectrode inputs. In one of the videos it basically looks like they mic'd up a petri dish on stage with a bunch of avant garde musicians working their hardest. That's actually pretty hilarious. Anyway, they should hold off on that until after they figure out whether these 'trans' neurons can even hear them. 3. They should try to train these neurons. Instead of microarray dishes though, I'd use optogenetics. From my experience it's much easier to evoke predictable signals using fiber optical input. It would be best to pass their instruments through a computer program though, that translated their sounds into pulse frequencies known to induce synaptic potentiation or synaptic depression. Currently, they are just adding noise to an already noisy system. All that said, this is still a cool project. And FWIW, they are much better neuroscientists than I am a musician.

svantana 9y ago

> I think this approach to synthesizing music from neural activity is completely misguided. Perhaps I am overly cynical, but I suspect the artist himself knew it would produce noise basically, but it doesn't matter because this is the type of thing that gets attention and that's the real currency in art. Similarly, there was an analog synth module that came out a while back that was driven by radioactive decay [1]. Both of these could easily be simulated by a few lines of code and nobody could tell the difference. http://www.factmag.com/2017/01/16/geiger-counter-synth-module-video/ http://www.factmag.com/2017/01/16/geiger-counter-synth-modul...

subroutine 9y ago
Yeah I agree. I think he achieved his goal, for sure. Somewhere between the induction of pluripotent cells and plating these stem cells on an MEA dish for neuron differentiation I forgot this guy was preparing an art performance piece.