5 ms·

This is one year and something old and returns better results, in my opinion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYxJ0bo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYx

• jcr 14y ago
  Thanks. Looks interesting (if you pardon the pun). I think the big difference in the approaches revolve around this claim, "Using this method, we can reconstruct arbitrary visual images, including geometric figures and alphabet letters, which are not used to train the decoders." versus > [4] Build a random library of ~18,000,000 seconds (5000 hours) of video downloaded at random from YouTube. (Note these videos have no overlap with the movies that subjects saw in the magnet). Put each of these clips through the dictionaries to generate predictions of brain activity. Select the 100 clips whose predicted activity is most similar to the observed brain activity. Average these clips together. This is the reconstruction. It seems gallantlab.org work is using known images/video along with the subject in the fMRI (magnet) being awake. Decoding arbitrary images seems to be the main advancement being leveraged in the dream decoding research.
  • runn1ng 14y ago
    That makes sense, because in the gallantlab video, you can clearly see the residual images from the previous videos (letters, different shapes).
• miga 14y ago
  Best results maybe, but both MRI resolution and frame acquisition times seem to improve fast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTOhDqhCKQs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTOhDqhCKQs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtBd1y0_Pvo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtBd1y0_Pvo