3 ms·
From what I understand reading about this a few years ago: EEG with this kind of external equipment can't read more than one strong impulse signal at a time(t
by r0s 15y ago
From what I understand reading about this a few years ago: EEG with this kind of external equipment can't read more than one strong impulse signal at a time(that would be a simple detection, binary on or off), and certainly can't locate signal origin.
So all the peripheral sensors detecting facial muscle movement do the real work. Seems pretty dishonest to claim brain interface.
Am I misinformed? We're all waiting for this technology to develop, that creates a big opportunity for misdirection.
- lukifer 15y agoStrictly speaking, every interface is a brain interface. The real test is whether it's possible to do things that can't be done with mouse/keyboard/touch/etc. Though the consensus currently seems to be "no", maybe future applications will surprise us.
- convulsive 15y agoThat's not entirely true -- there are some applications of the Epoc that can actually perform detections which cannot solely be attributed to facial muscle movement. [1] Of course, the signal-to-noise ratio is much lower than that of research-grade devices, so a lot of preprocessing is required. [1] NeuroPhone is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc82Z_yfEwc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc82Z_yfEwc. Here's a peer-reviewed article describing the preprocessing involved: http://sensorlab.cs.dartmouth.edu/pubs/neurophone.pdf http://sensorlab.cs.dartmouth.edu/pubs/neurophone.pdf
- r0s 15y ago> The Dial Tim application works on similar principles to P300-spellerbrain-computer interfaces: the phone flashes a sequence of photos of contacts from the address book and a P300 neural signal is elicited when the flashed photo matches the person whom the user wishes to dial. This is just as I've said above, one brain signal is used over time.