Slashdot Log In
Northrop Grumman To Develop Brain-Wave Binoculars
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Jun 20, 2008 01:30 PM
from the second-sight dept.
from the second-sight dept.
An anonymous reader writes "An AP wire reports that DARPA has granted a $6.7 million contract to Northrop Grumman to develop 'brainwave binoculars'. The binoculars will be built into a helmet, which will include EEG electrodes that will monitor the wearer's brain activity for patterns consistent with object identification/recognition. From what I can gather, the idea is that when you look at a far-off or partially obscured object without noticing it, your subconscious probably did notice it and tried, unsuccessfully, to identify it. The EEG in these binoculars would pick up on that kind of subconscious activity and draw the wearer's attention to the object in question. The goal is that these binoculars would be able to pick up on any object anywhere in the wearer's field of view, where a person can only pick up on things that he focuses both his eyes and his attention on. This delves into some very interesting territory: it would be an electronic device that uses human eyes to collect data, and even uses a human brain to partially process the data. Since it also passes its results back to the human providing the data and initial processing, it essentially adds a second processing loop in parallel to the wearer's visual system."
Related Stories
Submission: Northrop Grumman to Develop Brain-Wave Binoculars by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
waste of taxpayer dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
If this makes it past vaporware, I'll dance a jig.
false positives? (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember reading about the research behind that; that the "subconscious" detected things quicker than the conscious human. But if I could find it again, I'd like to see the details of the testing.
My guess is that the time between subconsciously and consciously recognizing something is used for verifications. So you get quicker results in the case where the image is, in fact, what you are asked to recognise, but you'd get false positives in the other cases.
I mean, recognizing threats is pretty important, evolution-wise. Since this device just takes existing data from the brain and feeds it back in, it's hard to believe it would be of any help, or we would have evolved the same thing.
Parent
Re:false positives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Our brains are incredibly good at parallel pattern matching. We can see patterns - real or spurious - in almost anything. But those thousands of parallel pattern matching units have to be funneled through a single consciousness to be useful. If a computer can sort through the synapses, find the ones that are looking to match "man with RPG in the distance", and figure out when they fire, it can perhaps bring something up on the display faster than the person can. Computers, after all, can process a small number of things faster than we can. They just can't process as many complex things in parallel.
Parent
X-ray glasses (Score:4, Funny)
As a kid, I sent in my money for the x-ray glasses on the back of the comic in my bubble gum. What a rip-off. Maybe I'll finally get a pair that work.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a good point, but don't you think there are reasons that make it practical for our conscious efforts to be focused on one problem/issue at a time? Apart from the fact that our sentience dictates much of how we process data (e.g we recall something from our memory that looks similar..etc), our sentience also "learns" to prioritize the objects on which to focus. If you're driving at high speed at a critical point and something catches your eye only slightly and you ignore it, it may be good that you do
Re:waste of taxpayer dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably said at the onset of most of the DARPA projects, most breakthrough technologies in all fields of science really, that's kind of the point.
Parent
Re:waste of taxpayer dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
If this makes it past vaporware, I'll dance a jig.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Northrop Grumman built the lunar lander and the B-2 Stealth Bomber...as well as countless other fixed-wing aircraft (manned and unmanned).
They build the world's most advanced aircraft carriers and attack submarines. They have divisions that build systems from the mundane to the insane. Example - the division in Reston, Virginia has been selling large-scale (up to 84") touchtable computer systems FOR YEARS...not IN years. They build any number of other cutting-edge sensor systems, high-energy defensive la
Re:waste of taxpayer dollars (Score:4, Funny)
Really..
If they do get it working it would be like this..
Subconscious: *LOOK* LOOK LOOK LOOK! look at the big .. blue thing .., I don't know what that is! look!
Conscious: uhh.. that's a mountain..
Parent
Sounds Just Like ... (Score:5, Funny)
... those x-ray glasses they used to sell in the backs of comic books.
What do you want to bet that the only thing these binoculars register is 'tits'.
Re:Sounds Just Like ... (Score:5, Funny)
What do you want to bet that the only thing these binoculars register is 'tits'.
And how would that be a waste of money?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> You must be new here.
New anywhere, I'd say. ...or a woman..
Necromunger scope? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this remind anyone of the Necromunger Scope beings from Chronicles of Riddick?
Future press release. (Score:5, Funny)
Servicemen reprimanded for zooming in on young women's breasts. One of the servicemen was quoted as saying, "It's the damn sub-conscious link! I can't do anything about it!" Defense department reevaluating binoculars.
Re: (Score:2)
However if you you think you are at risk of being shot at, your mind takes a different priority. Sex is usually at #2 after imeadeate survival.
Re:Future press release. (Score:5, Funny)
However if you you think you are at risk of being shot at, your mind takes a different priority. Sex is usually at #2 after imeadeate survival.
Parent
Re:Future press release. (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, 9 of them zoomed in on the woman's breast, but why is this 10th one looking at the guy beside her?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Future press release. (Score:4, Funny)
New defense tactic: send out naked, beautiful women. Shoot the Americans while they can't see anything else.
Parent
Re:Future press release. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Oh i'm not sure if this is such a good idea - (Score:2)
Alternative use: (Score:5, Interesting)
Interrogator: "Do you recognize these photos of bomb making materials?"
Suspect: "No, no I don't."
Interrogator: "Liar! Our brain wave scanner says you do! Off to the waterboard with you!"
Already exists: (Score:3, Informative)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E0DE143CF93AA35751C1A9679C8B63 [nytimes.com]
The only question is whether they're using it. They probably are:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/158464_brain29.html [nwsource.com]
I think the question on every ./er's mind is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I think the question on every ./er's mind is... (Score:5, Funny)
So long as you don't try and reformat with ReiserFS -- I hear that's a little dangerous.
Parent
Re:I think the question on every ./er's mind is... (Score:4, Funny)
Only to spouses. Only to spouses.
Parent
Oh Wow, Man... the Images (Score:5, Insightful)
From reading the short article, it looks like a method to take images the brain filters out as unimportant, and bring them up to the conscious level.
Problem: if you do this, wouldn't this clutter your view with unimportant images, or alternatively cause cognitive confusion? A person with this device attached literally couldn't trust their eyes anymore.
Sounds like Mescaline.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your the guy sitting on top of the HumVee. You're job is to continuously scan for suspicious activity. A mind numbingly boring job for the most part.
I would expect this to give the scanner's mind something to do, bringing their attention to much more activity. Most of which will be subsequently ignored, but occassionally it might make all the difference.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's an old saying, along the lines of "To see something, you must look at it, and then you must see it."
A lot of what you look at you could match / comprehend properly but don't. In many cases, parts of the brain used for the pattern recognition do fire, but the process doesn't complete (due to overload, fatigue, etc).
Having something mechanical flag those for you will help with the final seeing part.
Of course, it has to be tuned right. A lot of the brain's pattern match stuff fires on things which ar
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed: As described this device would seem to bring specific attention to everything in your field of vision you didn't take the time to try to identify.
More useful, in my opinion, would be one of the three other possabilities:
1) Auto zoom/focus on anything you attempt to focus on.
2) Perform its own pattern/image recognition and attempt to highlight things which it deems potentially important (not just everything you see).
3) Create an artifical focus (flat focus) for the field of vision (I suppose this wou
Sounds a little overhyped (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you imagine.... (Score:2)
Recursion issues abound (Score:5, Funny)
Guy wearing binoculars notices some object
...
Binoculars sense this and draw attention to object by putting some kind of HUD symbol on screen
Guy wearing binoculars notices HUD display object
Binoculars sense this and draw attention to object by putting some kind of HUD symbol on screen
Guy wearing binoculars notices HUD display object
Binoculars sense this and draw attention to object by putting some kind of HUD symbol on screen
Guy wearing binoculars notices HUD display object
Binoculars sense this and draw attention to object by putting some kind of HUD symbol on screen
Binoculars and/or Guy's brain explodes
???
Profit
Re:Recursion issues abound (Score:5, Insightful)
Profit
The issue is that with the current state of DARPA and US military "research", you can put pretty much anything in front of this line (including as many lines of ??? as you want) and it'll still happen.
Parent
don't get how it works ?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's a link to NGES's press release (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/hornet/index.html [northropgrumman.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually that's the product page. The following is the actual press release:
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/news/2008/06/144249_Northrop_Grumman-Led_Te.html [northropgrumman.com]
More (Score:3, Interesting)
garbage to hang on a GI that will distract him, or her, visually, at critical moments and which will run out of battery power at the worst possible times as well.
Remember Heinlein's comment about combat gear - it has to be easy enough for a grunt to use so that someone equipped with something simpler, like, say a rock, who then comes up from behind the soldier using the hardware and bashes his brains in while he's trying to read a vernier.
Too much information? (Score:3, Insightful)
On looking at any scene the human brain must catagorise thousands and thousands of schemas and frameworks while trying to determine objects of interest in that scene. Clearly most of the things the brain identifies are not of value and the schema is not raised to high-level consciousness.
When you step out of your front door every morning, the brain would identify squirrels, grass, hose on the lawn, a car with four tires, a motorcycle, the sun, clouds, milkman (ad nauseum)... If the wearer of this helmet were to be interested only in the newspaper on the step, what would stop the helmet from identifying every other object in view?
Basically, there's so much information in the world, how can a helmet determine that the terrorist in the bush is more important than the cat in the bush? They're both potentially threatening.
Training the mind or confusing it (Score:2)
It would be interesting to know if this would not just train the brain to warn you in those cases too. You are creating what could be considered a correcting feedback loop.
The question is, where do you make your brain draw the line and will it not teach the brain to just turn off all filters...
Prerequisites... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, binoculars focus you?
Where's Waldo? (Score:4, Funny)
That's right Waldo, you can run but you can't hide!
My tin-foil hat buisness... (Score:2)
Pro-Spam filter (Score:2)
If anything, will be useful to understand more how and why our perception process discard things. But maybe even walking wearing that things could prove being very hard.
Darwin says... BZZZT! (Score:5, Interesting)
The primate brain evolved in a situation where noticing hidden things was kind of important. Didn't see that shape in the grass? Oops, it was a skulking lion, you're dead, return genome to sender. We're the product of millions of years of life-or-death vision tests, and as a consequence, we're pretty good at it.
This device is based on the idea that some part of your brain might notice a hidden thing, but doesn't bother to tell the rest of you so you can react. This is evolutionary suicide. I'd have a hard time coming up with a trait that would be naturally selected out of the gene pool faster.
If this device worked, anyone who could use it would have gone extinct long ago.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)