5 ms·

I'm still skeptical of BCIs being useful, to healthy people, for, at least, another twenty years. I can't think of a single thing I could control with my brain,

I'm still skeptical of BCIs being useful, to healthy people, for, at least, another twenty years. I can't think of a single thing I could control with my brain, that I couldn't do more accurately, and consistently, with my hands, voice, etc. But, I cannot tell if my perception is stunted by my current life experience, the quality of existing sensing technologies, or an actual lack of application.

jasonhanley 13y ago
The best physical reaction time is about 160ms [1] A direct neural connection could be more like 5-15ms [2] An order of magnitude difference in response time has huge ramifications for all sorts of applications. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_time [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron
- kanzure 13y ago
  > A direct neural connection could be more like 5-15ms [2] That's not what EEG is. It's vastly more disappointing. > The best physical reaction time is about 160ms [1] Yes, but you (probably) have 10 fingers, and you can get the gaps between keypresses down to <100ms. That really helps with typing. Suppose you type 200 wpm, average word length 5 characters, maybe 980-1000 characters/minute or about 15-18 characters/second. When typed at a steady pace, you can reliably do 63ms between keystrokes. This isn't reaction time. With EEG, you get like 1 character every 4,800 milliseconds. (Although I admit I don't know if this is using dasher, or some other typing scheme, or what. Do you get just a binary character, or any UTF-8 character in those thousands of milliseconds?)
AndrewKemendo 13y ago
My approach is not so much your interaction to control a machine, more so how machines interact with your brain and body to guide your decision making. So think about BCIs and more broadly human machine interfaces for things like persistent heuristic mapping for memory augmentation (think along the lines of "tagging" events to neural activity - this might help with focused tDCS during recall) and in-stream blood toxin monitoring.
saulrh 13y ago
One simple example where a good BCI could beat hands and voice every time: window switching. No more task bar, no more start menu, no more alt-tab or window previews or virtual desktops. Just think "firefox" and you get firefox. If you want an even more hyperbolic what-if, to give you an idea of what we hope is so much as possible, a really could BCI could do away with the concept of windows entirely. Your eyes can only see one thing at a time and the computer can move information to your eyes faster than your eyes can move information to the computer, so just present the user with information as they think about wanting to observe it.
- themgt 13y ago
  I'm highly skeptical. I don't think "I am going to move my fingers around to press and hold the command button and press the tab button one or more times until I get to firefox". My brain already autopilots desires into physical output. EEG is a joke, and it's never explained how exactly BCI is going to work. If I switch to Firefox when I think it, then I would have annoyingly switched over multiple times when writing this comment. If it's something more complicated then that, then what is the generic metaphor my mind learns to app-switch that's simpler than the current one my brain performs using my fingers? I believe BCI absolutely can and will be the future of computing interfaces, but there's no way that simply "mapping" the brain is going to let us turn desires into actions more efficiently via digital telepathy than our existing high-res interfaces with our bodies - there's a lot of groundwork that still needs to be covered. To put it another way, if you could build software to accurately describe "what information a user wants to observe", you'd likely win a combo Nobel prize in neuroscience, philosophy and AI.
  - saulrh 13y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with that. As I said, "even more hyperbolic what-if". Call it the same kind of science fiction that people were writing about smartphones in the 60's: a kind of general direction that far overshoots reality in many ways but which is hopefully not entirely wrong. As for intentionality, your brain already handles that for you. I mean, I'm almost certain that you can imagine walking out the front door of your home without actually doing it. Same thing applies. I don't know the exact details of the mechanisms, but I have an overview. One technique is to have the user associate some rare signal, like thinking the word "chair" repeatedly, with an action, and let the user learn to use that signal quickly in the same way that you've learned to use command-tab. This is mostly done by tracking changes in blood oxygenation using infrared sensors or fMRI. Another technique is to tap into the user's motor cortex completely blindly, show the user the output, and let neuroplasticity[1] take care of the rest; this works astonishingly well, with monkeys being able to "quickly learn to voluntarily control the firing rates of individual and multiple neurons" and directly control robotic arms [2]. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain–computer_interface#Early_work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain–computer_interface#Early_...
capisce 13y ago
People with RSI would probably be happy to switch from keyboard and mouse to a BCI. "I can't think of a single thing I could control with my brain, that I couldn't do more accurately, and consistently, with my hands, voice, etc." Your brain is controlling your hands, why would being able to control a mouse cursor directly be less accurate or consistent? You're removing two layers of indirection (your hands and the mouse).
dm2 13y ago
I've always imagined it being a link to other brains or computing devices. The new computing devices become part of who we are, it would give us the advantages of a computer inside our heads. Instant calculations and true photographic memory would be possible. Plus it would eventually allow us to "transfer" our brains, which might be required to live forever. There has been lots of discussion on the requirements for a brain transfer, it would likely have to be gradual, and there is always the debate on if the new you is really you or just a clone.

jasonhanley 13y ago

The best physical reaction time is about 160ms [1] A direct neural connection could be more like 5-15ms [2] An order of magnitude difference in response time has huge ramifications for all sorts of applications. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_time [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

kanzure 13y ago
> A direct neural connection could be more like 5-15ms [2] That's not what EEG is. It's vastly more disappointing. > The best physical reaction time is about 160ms [1] Yes, but you (probably) have 10 fingers, and you can get the gaps between keypresses down to <100ms. That really helps with typing. Suppose you type 200 wpm, average word length 5 characters, maybe 980-1000 characters/minute or about 15-18 characters/second. When typed at a steady pace, you can reliably do 63ms between keystrokes. This isn't reaction time. With EEG, you get like 1 character every 4,800 milliseconds. (Although I admit I don't know if this is using dasher, or some other typing scheme, or what. Do you get just a binary character, or any UTF-8 character in those thousands of milliseconds?)

AndrewKemendo 13y ago

My approach is not so much your interaction to control a machine, more so how machines interact with your brain and body to guide your decision making. So think about BCIs and more broadly human machine interfaces for things like persistent heuristic mapping for memory augmentation (think along the lines of "tagging" events to neural activity - this might help with focused tDCS during recall) and in-stream blood toxin monitoring.

saulrh 13y ago

One simple example where a good BCI could beat hands and voice every time: window switching. No more task bar, no more start menu, no more alt-tab or window previews or virtual desktops. Just think "firefox" and you get firefox. If you want an even more hyperbolic what-if, to give you an idea of what we hope is so much as possible, a really could BCI could do away with the concept of windows entirely. Your eyes can only see one thing at a time and the computer can move information to your eyes faster than your eyes can move information to the computer, so just present the user with information as they think about wanting to observe it.

themgt 13y ago
I'm highly skeptical. I don't think "I am going to move my fingers around to press and hold the command button and press the tab button one or more times until I get to firefox". My brain already autopilots desires into physical output. EEG is a joke, and it's never explained how exactly BCI is going to work. If I switch to Firefox when I think it, then I would have annoyingly switched over multiple times when writing this comment. If it's something more complicated then that, then what is the generic metaphor my mind learns to app-switch that's simpler than the current one my brain performs using my fingers? I believe BCI absolutely can and will be the future of computing interfaces, but there's no way that simply "mapping" the brain is going to let us turn desires into actions more efficiently via digital telepathy than our existing high-res interfaces with our bodies - there's a lot of groundwork that still needs to be covered. To put it another way, if you could build software to accurately describe "what information a user wants to observe", you'd likely win a combo Nobel prize in neuroscience, philosophy and AI.
- saulrh 13y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with that. As I said, "even more hyperbolic what-if". Call it the same kind of science fiction that people were writing about smartphones in the 60's: a kind of general direction that far overshoots reality in many ways but which is hopefully not entirely wrong. As for intentionality, your brain already handles that for you. I mean, I'm almost certain that you can imagine walking out the front door of your home without actually doing it. Same thing applies. I don't know the exact details of the mechanisms, but I have an overview. One technique is to have the user associate some rare signal, like thinking the word "chair" repeatedly, with an action, and let the user learn to use that signal quickly in the same way that you've learned to use command-tab. This is mostly done by tracking changes in blood oxygenation using infrared sensors or fMRI. Another technique is to tap into the user's motor cortex completely blindly, show the user the output, and let neuroplasticity[1] take care of the rest; this works astonishingly well, with monkeys being able to "quickly learn to voluntarily control the firing rates of individual and multiple neurons" and directly control robotic arms [2]. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain–computer_interface#Early_work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain–computer_interface#Early_...

capisce 13y ago

People with RSI would probably be happy to switch from keyboard and mouse to a BCI. "I can't think of a single thing I could control with my brain, that I couldn't do more accurately, and consistently, with my hands, voice, etc." Your brain is controlling your hands, why would being able to control a mouse cursor directly be less accurate or consistent? You're removing two layers of indirection (your hands and the mouse).

dm2 13y ago

I've always imagined it being a link to other brains or computing devices. The new computing devices become part of who we are, it would give us the advantages of a computer inside our heads. Instant calculations and true photographic memory would be possible. Plus it would eventually allow us to "transfer" our brains, which might be required to live forever. There has been lots of discussion on the requirements for a brain transfer, it would likely have to be gradual, and there is always the debate on if the new you is really you or just a clone.