3 ms·
Neurologist here. There is an inherent problem of physics. The skull acts as a low-pass filter of the brain's activity. You lose a lot of information if you don
by kensai 7y ago
Neurologist here. There is an inherent problem of physics. The skull acts as a low-pass filter of the brain's activity. You lose a lot of information if you don't go under the skull.
I don't think EEGs can really give the spatial and temporal resolution we really need to extract the necessary information for thought decoding (or encoding).
- youareostriches 7y agoI’m curious of your opinion on Openwater: https://www.openwater.cc/technology https://www.openwater.cc/technology
- dnautics 7y agoyou don't need to decode thought, you just need to decode information at some really low bitrate to export information (say text). Working with a NN, the brain can probably negotiate the relevant parameters (let's say frequency modulation across one channels with four bins, across 4 spots on the brain), that's 4^4 = 64 values across whatever timebox of resolution you get. That's enough to encode english letters, which itself probably is an underprovisioned mechanism of data transfer).
- smallnamespace 7y agoGive the user real time feedback from the reader NN. I wouldn’t be surprised if the biofeedback allows the user to retrain their brain to encode information in low frequency signals—the raw channel capacity necessary to transmit text is quite low, plus the reader NN can also use context if hooked up to a recurrent submodel.