4 ms·

Not really, that we know of. To appreciate the complexity you could read this post[0] from Wait But Why? Your brain has approximately 40,000 neurons in the spac

Not really, that we know of. To appreciate the complexity you could read this post[0] from Wait But Why? Your brain has approximately 40,000 neurons in the space of a cubic millimeter. Each saying something completely different. It’s incomprehensible noise unless you start dividing it up like Neuralink has. They get a few thousand probes in the size of a penny, which is a far greater level of resolution than you could probably ever expect from a wireless solution. [0] https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html

aparsons 6y ago
Do you think something like fMRI would have enough resolution? Can’t pick up activity directly of course, but perhaps by picking up fluid flow differentials?
- PetitPrince 6y ago
  As mentioned by a sibling comment, fMRI have a sufficient spatial resolution (i.e. you can watch the activity of a few number of neuron at a time instead of grouping them by batch of hhundreds of them), but the temporal resolution is low (order of magnitude is seconds; a single action potential is 5ms). Here's a graph that summarize the temporal/spatial tradeoff of the different BMI tech: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-various-neural-recording-and-imaging-techniques-comparing-their-temporal-and-spatial_fig2_322549090 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-various-neural-recor...