4 ms·

Before we get ahead of ourselves: >The participant, who asked to be referred to as BRAVO1, worked with the researchers to create a 50-word vocabulary that Chan

Before we get ahead of ourselves: >The participant, who asked to be referred to as BRAVO1, worked with the researchers to create a 50-word vocabulary that Chang’s team could recognize from brain activity using advanced computer algorithms. Fifty words, that's it. For comparison, a nurse a laminated piece of A4 paper and a patient who can blink get about 15 characters per minute from the English alphabet. Great PR, but not a substantial improvement over the BCIs from the past 15 years.

robertwt7 5y ago
I still think its a good progress regardless
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  It is not a substantial improvement over previous experiments from the late 00's.
  - knicholes 5y ago
    And it requires a brain implant.
  - op00to 5y ago
    It is a substantial change in how the intended word is selected. This new process lends itself to huge amounts of training and machine learning to vastly expand the vocabulary.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      >It is a substantial change in how the intended word is selected. Detecting (in)activity in M1 during imagined movement tasks has been the standard decoding method for 30+ years. >This new process lends itself to huge amounts of training and machine learning to vastly expand the vocabulary. Not without degrading accuracy. The fundamental limit to these systems is the human operator; not the decoding algorithms. ML has advanced dramatically since the turn of the century but almost all BCI performance gains have been from new sensors.
Goety 5y ago
Well this is what is public now.
senkora 5y ago
For comparison purposes, 15 characters per minute equals 3 words per minute^, so this would be about six times as fast as that approach. ^by convention
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  BRAVO-1's vocabulary was limited to 50 words; basically 6 bits per symbol instead of 5.
rat87 5y ago
what about people who can't make their eyes blink?
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  BCI could be a useful technology for them in future. My laminated paper example was just to point out how basic the current stuff is.
skipants 5y ago
Is this really sound criticism? The first iterations of lots of technology were worse than their contemporaries. You could easily out-ride the first car with a horse in both speed an distance. You could out-calculate the first computers. The point is the potential the technology has. Here they are translating actual brain patterns to words. That's pretty awesome.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  I should point that I studied a PhD in the application of Machine Learning to Neurosignal decoding back in 2017-2018 (dropped out after one year), so this isn't just criticism I've plucked out the air. I spent a solid 6 months intimately learning the pros and cons of various existing BCI systems, as well as the exact methods researchers use to make their technology look like a breakthrough when it isn't. Specifically, here, they've created a system that can decode one of 50 symbols - a mere 1 bit more than the English alphabet - and described the symbols as "words" so that the reader thinks each symbol carries much more information than it actually does. They've also cherry-picked the patient that responded the best. When you peel back the hype, this is about the same performance we've been getting since '08 for an invasive, subdural, non-penetrative array.
  - thaw13579 5y ago
    Any chance you can please share a reference for that earlier comparable work? Not challenging your view, just curious
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      Oh God, I started looking up the papers and my brain started melting. I'd genuinely forgotten about SSVEP. Anyway, knock yourself out with research: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_yhi=2010&q=motor+imagery+bci+ecog+ITR&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_yhi... Here's one from 2006 that got 35bpm without an implant (the one in the article would be closer to 60, but that's to be expected as it's invasive): https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46069183/the_berlin_brain_computer_interface_eeg_based_communication.pdf?1464613871=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_Berlin_Brain_Computer_Interface_EEG.pdf&Expires=1626675385&Signature=DIL7lmRh0uGvshGmHmekrNSKLXoyLeA~rBow80kC935JIhjuL2bPX9HF3fr8ilPIdBYcgDKuEGiz~H43niDmwVkxRHIE9Q~Ydwzn0C~e39C43771PNeWH-MB7l6WdMayixLeWSwQxF7PXu7psZLwUUvs6KpapTdWxfDiED0oBLiz-igPLRgFssm5mRpCKOvyi3BwjbOWa-fhsM~O2Qn63gM7V6jhZSKdFlNP7ya5Rj0RYcS3OcjUqwePOSi9leGBFk48wJT1YrXGvWu~Y9v8Ztxr7qONEHfIEyE~xP1wmYGnWFCNS-1HUG4ZoCm5Y3oy4d8gTJK9yNJQSmW4~DX2DA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46069183/the_berlin_br... Here's another from 2010 with a similar result under similar conditions: https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/ws/files/11410334/cecotti_tnsre.pdf https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/ws/files/11410334/cecotti_tnsre.pd...

robertwt7 5y ago

I still think its a good progress regardless

AussieWog93 5y ago
It is not a substantial improvement over previous experiments from the late 00's.
- knicholes 5y ago
  And it requires a brain implant.
- op00to 5y ago
  It is a substantial change in how the intended word is selected. This new process lends itself to huge amounts of training and machine learning to vastly expand the vocabulary.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    >It is a substantial change in how the intended word is selected. Detecting (in)activity in M1 during imagined movement tasks has been the standard decoding method for 30+ years. >This new process lends itself to huge amounts of training and machine learning to vastly expand the vocabulary. Not without degrading accuracy. The fundamental limit to these systems is the human operator; not the decoding algorithms. ML has advanced dramatically since the turn of the century but almost all BCI performance gains have been from new sensors.

Goety 5y ago

Well this is what is public now.

senkora 5y ago

For comparison purposes, 15 characters per minute equals 3 words per minute^, so this would be about six times as fast as that approach. ^by convention

AussieWog93 5y ago
BRAVO-1's vocabulary was limited to 50 words; basically 6 bits per symbol instead of 5.

rat87 5y ago

what about people who can't make their eyes blink?

AussieWog93 5y ago
BCI could be a useful technology for them in future. My laminated paper example was just to point out how basic the current stuff is.

skipants 5y ago

Is this really sound criticism? The first iterations of lots of technology were worse than their contemporaries. You could easily out-ride the first car with a horse in both speed an distance. You could out-calculate the first computers. The point is the potential the technology has. Here they are translating actual brain patterns to words. That's pretty awesome.

AussieWog93 5y ago
I should point that I studied a PhD in the application of Machine Learning to Neurosignal decoding back in 2017-2018 (dropped out after one year), so this isn't just criticism I've plucked out the air. I spent a solid 6 months intimately learning the pros and cons of various existing BCI systems, as well as the exact methods researchers use to make their technology look like a breakthrough when it isn't. Specifically, here, they've created a system that can decode one of 50 symbols - a mere 1 bit more than the English alphabet - and described the symbols as "words" so that the reader thinks each symbol carries much more information than it actually does. They've also cherry-picked the patient that responded the best. When you peel back the hype, this is about the same performance we've been getting since '08 for an invasive, subdural, non-penetrative array.
- thaw13579 5y ago
  Any chance you can please share a reference for that earlier comparable work? Not challenging your view, just curious
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    Oh God, I started looking up the papers and my brain started melting. I'd genuinely forgotten about SSVEP. Anyway, knock yourself out with research: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_yhi=2010&q=motor+imagery+bci+ecog+ITR&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_yhi... Here's one from 2006 that got 35bpm without an implant (the one in the article would be closer to 60, but that's to be expected as it's invasive): https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46069183/the_berlin_brain_computer_interface_eeg_based_communication.pdf?1464613871=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_Berlin_Brain_Computer_Interface_EEG.pdf&Expires=1626675385&Signature=DIL7lmRh0uGvshGmHmekrNSKLXoyLeA~rBow80kC935JIhjuL2bPX9HF3fr8ilPIdBYcgDKuEGiz~H43niDmwVkxRHIE9Q~Ydwzn0C~e39C43771PNeWH-MB7l6WdMayixLeWSwQxF7PXu7psZLwUUvs6KpapTdWxfDiED0oBLiz-igPLRgFssm5mRpCKOvyi3BwjbOWa-fhsM~O2Qn63gM7V6jhZSKdFlNP7ya5Rj0RYcS3OcjUqwePOSi9leGBFk48wJT1YrXGvWu~Y9v8Ztxr7qONEHfIEyE~xP1wmYGnWFCNS-1HUG4ZoCm5Y3oy4d8gTJK9yNJQSmW4~DX2DA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46069183/the_berlin_br... Here's another from 2010 with a similar result under similar conditions: https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/ws/files/11410334/cecotti_tnsre.pdf https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/ws/files/11410334/cecotti_tnsre.pd...