3 ms·
Incredibly cool idea. Though I wonder if they couldn't use a well trained animal instead of a human as the 'threat detector'. This would allow more direct acces
by cdcox 14y ago
Incredibly cool idea. Though I wonder if they couldn't use a well trained animal instead of a human as the 'threat detector'. This would allow more direct access to the brain (implanting electrodes in soldiers is not usually acceptable). It would also allow use of multiple animals to lower error rate.
However, a quick literature search indicates that there is not something as easy to monitor as P300 in animals so perhaps this is not feasible.
- rubidium 14y agoMore relevant may be that perceived threats to animals are very different than perceived threats to trained soldiers. Plus, why do you want to train animals when we've got unemployment :) ?
- mparlane 14y agoThey don't complain as much.
- Retric 14y agoSome how I don't think training animals to do this type of detection would be easier than training a computer to do so. PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon