2 ms·

That’s fair. Most of the existing stuff is pretty janky, in that it works for some people in some circumstances sometimes. I’d say it’s a bit like mid-90s spee

That’s fair. Most of the existing stuff is pretty janky, in that it works for some people in some circumstances sometimes. I’d say it’s a bit like mid-90s speech recognition: it works well enough to be intriguing, but the hassle and inaccuracy make people favor other alternatives. I’d take an eye tracker over an EEG speller, for example, if I had ALS. Some of this is due to hard technical problems, like building better electrodes or squeezing more information out of the signals, but I think there’s a lot of low-hanging fruit too. For example, many spellers don’t include language models, which, as someone originally trained in speech recognition, absolutely blows my mind.

kajecounterhack 5y ago
That makes sense. Granted even if they did language models, most spellers can only be used for short periods of time because of eye strain. Is that low hanging fruit or just small improvements on a still unviable approach? And if you're using motor imagery spellers...you're adding a model to like 2-4 bits of input. The efficiency there is horrible. I'm with you on "I'd prefer an eye tracker." Modern advances in eye tracking (saccade-based stuff!) are pretty sick, and make the technology usable for long periods of time. You have higher bandwidth input than motor imagery, and don't torture the eye like P300.