3 ms·
So the innovation here is not the neural probes (200 neurons, same state of the art), nor the connection from the neural probes to outside the skull (physical p
by unchocked 6y ago
So the innovation here is not the neural probes (200 neurons, same state of the art), nor the connection from the neural probes to outside the skull (physical port, not wireless), but only that there is a wireless dongle that sits on top of the physical port and connects to a server somewhere? Yawn?
- tyingq 6y agoI think, yeah "Yawn" from a tech perspective. But for average people, the idea that these folks are hooked up and streaming from their homes, with minimal visible hardware is new. It feels more sci-fi than someone in a research center with a ton of wires on their head.
- o_p 6y agoI doubt thats physically possible, its like trying to access your RAM by reading EM fluctuations from the outside of your computer, sure, you can see when theres a lot of read/write instructions but theres no way you read memory.
- tyingq 6y agoIt seems like it's closer to measuring which areas of the "die" are busy. Like "the MMU is doing something hard" or "this adder circuit in the ALU is idle", etc.
- lallysingh 6y ago> In the current study, two devices used together recorded neural signals at 48 megabits per second from 200 electrodes with a battery life of over 36 hours. So roughly 10 Gbps, not bad. But this isn't about the raw tech. For people doing medical research, it lets them gather data all day instead of just appointments. That's the big change.