5 ms·

Came here to express something like this. Some neuroscientists I talked to recently for an article I wrote who specialize in brain-computer interfaces and neura

Came here to express something like this. Some neuroscientists I talked to recently for an article I wrote who specialize in brain-computer interfaces and neural decoding told me the mass market EEG headsets are basically trash. I don't trust any work done with them as the primary source, this project included. The article, if you're interested: http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/wishful-thinking-can-scientists-really-read-your-brain-n246311 http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/wishful-thinking-can-...

robg 12y ago
I'm a neuroscientist with a decade in fMRI and that criticism is unwarranted. Scalp based EEG is inherently noisy but if hundreds toward thousands of people are using these, there's a real chance the signal could overwhelm the noise. What's the alternative? A bunch of lab-based studies? Those have their own severe problems. Research isn't zero sum. Every little bit counts.
- corrconf 12y ago
  In order for an EEG signal to overcome noise it is typically time locked to an event and recorded multiple times. The signal is then averaged time locked to the stimuli. How is this done cycling around NYC? Do you politely ask a driver to swerve into your path 5 or 6 more times in order to get a proper sample of the event? If you have experience in fMRI consider that this EEG is going to look like continual gradient and line noise artefacts, potentially highly correlated to the type of road surface the bike is currently on. Please explain how this can be 'averaged out' in order to obtain a signal.
- dmicah 12y ago
  I'm also work in (applied) cognitive neuroscience and disagree with respect to the utility of these studies (ie "every little bit counts"). Pop-neuroscience articles that make large claims have the potential to poison the well in terms of the public's interest in, and the reputation of, neuroscience. Too much hype in a field has the potential to create a backlash, as in the "AI Winter" of the 1980s.
  - robg 12y ago
    I've watched fMRI (the God region of the brain!) studies poison the well. Pop-science is an endless, multimedia beast. Research that replicates is truth winning out. Everything else, including many high profile journal articles, is just noise.
corrconf 12y ago
Nice article - I saw Gallant present his labs research in London. It's incredibly cool and is actually real. As far as I know the heavy hitters in the European BCI community stated that they found no reasonable evidence that mass market EEG headsets worked. Depending on the specialism some labs still publish research using them.

robg 12y ago

I'm a neuroscientist with a decade in fMRI and that criticism is unwarranted. Scalp based EEG is inherently noisy but if hundreds toward thousands of people are using these, there's a real chance the signal could overwhelm the noise. What's the alternative? A bunch of lab-based studies? Those have their own severe problems. Research isn't zero sum. Every little bit counts.

corrconf 12y ago
In order for an EEG signal to overcome noise it is typically time locked to an event and recorded multiple times. The signal is then averaged time locked to the stimuli. How is this done cycling around NYC? Do you politely ask a driver to swerve into your path 5 or 6 more times in order to get a proper sample of the event? If you have experience in fMRI consider that this EEG is going to look like continual gradient and line noise artefacts, potentially highly correlated to the type of road surface the bike is currently on. Please explain how this can be 'averaged out' in order to obtain a signal.
dmicah 12y ago
I'm also work in (applied) cognitive neuroscience and disagree with respect to the utility of these studies (ie "every little bit counts"). Pop-neuroscience articles that make large claims have the potential to poison the well in terms of the public's interest in, and the reputation of, neuroscience. Too much hype in a field has the potential to create a backlash, as in the "AI Winter" of the 1980s.
- robg 12y ago
  I've watched fMRI (the God region of the brain!) studies poison the well. Pop-science is an endless, multimedia beast. Research that replicates is truth winning out. Everything else, including many high profile journal articles, is just noise.

corrconf 12y ago

Nice article - I saw Gallant present his labs research in London. It's incredibly cool and is actually real. As far as I know the heavy hitters in the European BCI community stated that they found no reasonable evidence that mass market EEG headsets worked. Depending on the specialism some labs still publish research using them.