Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Technology Science

The Internet Meets the Neural Net 394

Posted by michael from the where-can-i-find-out-how-to-inject-signals-into-my-head dept.
orangesquid writes "OpenEEG is a system for getting data from your brain to your computer. Recently, work was resumed on scEEG, a soundcard-based system which may one day make home EEG systems very cheap (they currently cost a few hundred US$ to put together; there are, though, some potential cheaper alternatives). But, what research is being done into getting data from your computer to your brain? There have been some systems that inject optical signals into your eyes, but, what about direct neural interfacing? It seems EMF and light are one option; playing with neurotransmitters may be another. What do /.'ers foresee coming in this field? What research have you seen being done? Particularly, is any of this to the point where homemade, low-cost systems are feasible? Where can I find out how to inject signals into my head? Combining this with openEEG might lead to some exciting new levels of Internet addiction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Internet Meets the Neural Net More

The Internet Meets the Neural Net

Comments Filter:

  • Excellent (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 25, 2004 @11:08PM (#9798350)
    The sooner I can get that Google extension for my brain, the better.
  • Something just tells me that us geeks are going to demand a HUD of Slahdot if its possible with this technology.Imagine how much more interesting meetings would be?

  • Critical that it stays Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Sunday July 25, 2004 @11:08PM (#9798355) Homepage Journal
    Gaming will benefit from this technology -- that much is true. But what else is true is that the use of brainwaves in an Open Source setting will help us all to better understand the vulnerabilities of our brains over time (and there are likely plenty). Technology can therefore be developed to ensure our safety, without any future Dieboldesque security/functionality problems. Not to mention what we can learn about piles of different minds, perhaps even working together in unison.

    While gaming will prosper from this tech, it's important to note that gaming will also lead this technology further than any other field, because of the fierce competition in the global gaming market. The rest of the world is going to play catch-up to gamers.

    Controlling rendered environs in space using our brain, must be the first step towards perfecting the human-computer links we'll need to explore the deepest parts of space. I believe that Einstein predicted that we will need to eventually embrace a future where computers and human beings coexist and evolve together (and we're already doing that), but what Alan Watts [alanwatts.com], the famed Buddhist, said was that we should be utilizing the systems at our disposal to make our lives easier. Watts said that fears be damned -- we must find a way to free every human being from the slavery of the 9-5 grind. Don't think Watts was a fringe guy -- he was very insightful and grounded. If you haven't read anything by him, I suggest picking up

    This kind of technology, if kept in the Open Source realm, can lead to greatness, in time.

    • Re:Critical that it stays Open Source (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cujo_1111 ( 627504 ) on Sunday July 25, 2004 @11:39PM (#9798503) Homepage Journal
      While gaming will prosper from this tech, it's important to note that gaming will also lead this technology further than any other field, because of the fierce competition in the global gaming market. The rest of the world is going to play catch-up to gamers.

      On this point, I think you are wrong. Porn will lead the development of this technology whether you like it or not.

      Imagine inputting porn signals directly into the brain, you could take porn from being an audio and visual experience into a full body experience. The possibilities are enormous (hopefully).

      Just like the porn industry took up online credit card transactions faster than anyone else, the porn industry will lead the way in this field too.
      • It is interesting however to notice that porn has not taken a full grasp of 3d computer generated scenes. They are out there...well "so I've heard", but other media such as ASCII porn or even really shit looking mobile phone porn seems more popular that openGL/direct 3d porn.
        • That is mostly because of the over-abundance of live-action actors/actresses. It's hard to get people to really shoot each other, but it's easy to get them to have sex. There isn't much need to render something you can film 10x easier and cheaper.

      • Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mfh ( 56 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @01:17AM (#9798880) Homepage Journal
        You're dead wrong. The porn industry has not made use of any current 3d animation to any effect worth mentioning (other than Anime which is largely hand drawn or computer generated -- yet not really 3d animated), and they will clearly *not* make any use of this tech until it's at least production stable. Who do you think is going to carry this tech meanwhile? Gamers.

    • Re:Critical that it stays Open Source (Score:5, Informative)

      by alienw ( 585907 ) <alienw,slashdot&gmail,com> on Sunday July 25, 2004 @11:54PM (#9798573)
      Whatever. As someone who has some experience with neurobiology, it is very unlikely you can actually get anything useful from EEG signals. They are totally useless for exploring the brain's functions. Sorry to burst your bubble, but even microelectrode arrays implanted directly into the brain don't provide anything too interesting. At best, you might see a different firing pattern based on external stimulus, and even that is rare.

      • Re:Critical that it stays Open Source (Score:5, Informative)

        by natrik ( 799685 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @12:01AM (#9798605) Homepage
        Early tests with monkeys indicate great progress in controlling a robotic arm with a monkey.

        The monkey is in a room looking at a screen, and thinks ... the picture on the screen changes position according to the monkey's mind. A robotic arm is also controlled, and the screen and arm basically do the same things as a result of the monkey "wanting" it to. ... and that's just a monkey!

        Google it: robot arm monkey brain [google.com]

        • If I remember the original articles on this topic, the monkey started out with moving it's hand, to do the functions it was thinking of. Over time, it got lazy to the point of not even moving it's arm, to achieve the same results.

          But now, if we all did this, how much lazier would we get. Hell, we went from an agrarian society a few hundred years ago (like, most people were all hunter/gatherers or farmers), to the industrial age where we busted ass in factories to make things to make our work easier
        • Progress up to a point.

          Basically you are trying to create, with EEG equipment, recording vague, noisy signals through a skull, an output system that is superior to the motor control system designed by evolution that uses direct signal propagation.

          Now these systems will be useful for those who lack these output streams (e.g. CJ disease). But for the rest of us, our hands are going to continue to be the best way to output information for decades at least.
        • That's pretty well known. I have a book from the early 80s with a simple analog circuit that's supposed to do something similar (control the direction of a toy train, IIRC). This has nothing to do with EEG, it's just muscle signals. Your brain sends small signals to the muscles when you think of moving them. If you amplify them, you can use these signals.

          Interesting? Maybe. Useful? Not for an average person. You have to attach lots of electrodes that are intrusive, uncomfortable, possibly expensive

      • Well... (Score:2)

        by mfh ( 56 )
        > Whatever...

        You might know quite a bit about neurobiology, but computer science operates with the unknown regularly. If the patterns are different or we can increase the varriance/sensitivity (ie: diffraction), we will be able to use them as controlling/communicating mechanisms. Again, this improves computer interfaces, not brain interfaces per se. Yet the inverse application of brainwaves is likely feasible once enough raw data is compiled on the subject.

      • "Totally useless" (Score:3, Informative)

        by XNormal ( 8617 )
        They are totally useless for exploring the brain's functions

        Perhaps you won't be doing cutting edge neurology research with this kind of EEG interface to your computer but it's far from useless. Basic analysis of the spectrum of the signal is not so hard. The dominant frequencies correlate to states of consciousness such as relaxation or concentration.

        It's fun. It's fascinating to watch your own brain in action. It can even be potentially useful as a biofeedback tool.
      • Whatever. As someone who has some experience with neurobiology, it is very unlikely you can actually get anything useful from EEG signals. They are totally useless for exploring the brain's functions. Sorry to burst your bubble, but even microelectrode arrays implanted directly into the brain don't provide anything too interesting. At best, you might see a different firing pattern based on external stimulus, and even that is rare.

        Actually, this is an area where there has been a lot of progress in recent y

  • Risky? (Score:5, Funny)

    by usefool ( 798755 ) on Sunday July 25, 2004 @11:10PM (#9798358) Homepage
    ...homemade, low-cost systems are feasible? Where can I find out how to inject signals into my head?

    Homemade, low-cost, inject signals into my head... For some reasons I don't think this is one place for DIY :)

  • I know... (Score:2, Funny)

    by wyldeone ( 785673 )
    Kungfu!

  • Please don't tell MSFT about this (Score:4, Funny)

    by KevinKnSC ( 744603 ) * on Sunday July 25, 2004 @11:10PM (#9798363)
    Considering how many times my Windows computers have crashed, I'd hate to think what Microsoft Brain Server 2008 will do to me.

  • chips on baby's brains (Score:5, Interesting)

    by flechette_indigo ( 738323 ) on Sunday July 25, 2004 @11:11PM (#9798366)
    New braincells are total wildcards. They can be used for anything. Put a grid of wires over a 1000X1000 patch of neurons shortly after birth. Use the grid for io, teaching the baby to use the interface. Viola, a computer finger.

  • More likely as an input device (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CatGrep ( 707480 ) on Sunday July 25, 2004 @11:11PM (#9798374)
    It's more likely that we'll be able to use brainwaves to say, move a cursor, or input text to a computer than it will be to go the other way around. I really doubt that we'll be able to input data from computers directly into our brain anytime soon - the human brain is very complicated and varies from individual to individual. Would everyone have exactly the same input regions, for example?

    • More to the point, it seems like a total waste of time. The limiting factor on my ability to perform work on the computer is very seldom the actual interface between my mind and the software. I spend more time comprehending text than I do reading it, and I spend more time thinking about the next statement or function call than I do typing it in ( which is admittedly not very much time at all ). People seem to have this idea that neural interfaces will allow them to, for example, instantly back-form memor

  • hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by uprightcitizen ( 671176 ) on Sunday July 25, 2004 @11:12PM (#9798375) Homepage
    What do /.'ers foresee coming in this field?

    Porn. I foresee lots and lots of porn in the field.

  • Not to be argumentitive... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by merikus ( 722704 ) on Sunday July 25, 2004 @11:12PM (#9798377)
    ...but does anyone else find this to be creepy? I like having a physical separation between me and my net connection. If we had direct brain interface, could you imagine what the script kiddies would come up with? You'd open an e-mail attachment by mistake, and end up poking yourself in the eye for hours...

  • Isn't it obvious (Score:5, Funny)

    by fireman sam ( 662213 ) on Sunday July 25, 2004 @11:13PM (#9798380) Homepage Journal
    "But, what research is being done into getting data from your computer to your brain?..."

    Duh, a monitor!

    "getting data from your brain to your computer."

    Damn, that is a tough one? How about a keyboard.

    btw, I'm *trying* to be funny.
    • But seriosly folks all my brain needs is a command line interface...

    • Re:Isn't it obvious (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mefster ( 118530 )
      Having a neurological disorder myself, I actually
      do consider this a useful research topic.

      Both of my optic nerves, and the touch sensitivity
      in my fingers, have both degraded.

      If I had a way of overcoming these problems, it
      would be very useful to me.

      Remember, not everyone has the same level of physical ability!

      --
      mefster
    • Even though a direct connection to the brain might be sexier, the humble monitor is probably a better approach.
      If you're seeking to increase the bandwidth of information you can absorb, look at increasing the area of your monitor(s).

      Now for input methods, keyboards leave a lot to be desired. I could probably enter this comment as fast as you can read it if I had a better input method. But would it be as Interesting? (or Insightful if you prefer)

      • I remember seeing a show in the `80s called Ripley's believe it or not, well one of those shows anyway.

        The had a person who could touch type at over 200 words per minute (a word being 5 characters).

        So, to say keyboards leave a lot to be desired. It is more that people's ability with a keyboard leaves a lot to be desired, not the keyboard itself.

        btw, I type at about 40 wpm, but I would not like to any electrical devices into my head. Have you ever seen what happens to peripherals that are connected to a P
  • This sounds like more of the movie to reality situation like in "The Matrix." I always had a problem with this type of system as it is similar to cheating off an exam in school. Someone can spend years learning something that could be transferred in minutes. Where is the fairness in that?

    Second, I definitely would love to have a system where by my thoughts would control my computer. That would be my dream right now.

    GroupShares Inc. [groupshares.com] - New Affiliate Program Launched

    • Re:Movie Reality (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NoYes19 ( 766616 )
      "Someone can spend years learning something that could be transferred in minutes. Where is the fairness in that?" Someone can spend a life time discovering something that can be learned in a day. Where is the fairness in that? Its not about scholastic "fairness" it is about progress. If the time to learn can be cut, then the contribution to research naturally increases. Likewise intelligence becomes of greater importance, unlike the current education system that favors memorization ability.

    • Re:Movie Reality (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MrFlannel ( 762587 )
      Point of school is to learn, right? So whats the difference if they pick it up after hours of studying, or after a few minutes of "downloading". Heck, how is that any different than people learning as they already do, at different speeds? Should we go Harrison Bergeron [penguinppc.org] on everyone?
    • I think it would ne fair if it were broadly available and not limited to an elite, which it probably would be at first. But think of when it spreads! Imagine if huge amounts of data were instantly available to you with perfect recall and control. Now imagine if everyone had this ability, with the added bonus of thought-speed communication with everyone else. This would be a fundamental change in the capacities of our species.
      • I share your sentiment about the potential for this. It would be a fundamental change, no doubt.

        But I foresee problems with huge amounts of technical information being available to the minds of severely immature people. Schools today suck, that's my opinion based on my experience, but what I did do in school, was mature. If I had access to the programming knowledge that has taken me over a decade to amass, available in my brain when I was 17, I would have used it to wreak havoc. And that's just the progr
    • Someone can spend a day to walk 20 miles that could be driven in half an hour. Where is the fairness in that? Of course, people who just download stuff into their brain and don't bother to actually use their brains to learn and study are much more likely to have their brain degrade on them over time, just like people who drive everywhere are much more likely have their muscles degarde on them over time.
  • No more need for studying... just find whatever information you need on the net and cram it into your brain! I like the sound of this. Well, that is, if the accruacy of such a system can be trusted. I for one, can't distinguish opinion from fact because I read /. too much.
    • You could have your own personal store of information, previously vetted by yourself or some person or organization I trust. You might even separate info into categories based on source, e.g. /. less trusted than, say, the National Inquirer. This is actually a bit like studying, only much faster and not as reliant on semi-reliable wetware. A broad search would only be a requirement for the things you haven't "studied."

  • You'll need a good firewall (Score:4, Funny)

    by SteamyMobile ( 783822 ) <support@steamymobile.com> on Sunday July 25, 2004 @11:17PM (#9798400) Homepage
    MindGuard [zapatopi.net] provides pyschotronic mind-control protection and runs on Linux. Try it, you'll see how well it works.

  • Me, personally? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fodi ( 452415 )
    Optimistic: I don't forsee any development reaching the consumer level in the next 20 years

    Pessimistic: well... >20 years...
  • I wrote an ask /. article very similar to this yesterday. My question was, will the integration of computers and our brains lead to practical immortality? Can a human consciousness, memories, and personality be transfered to hardware in such a way that the person can continue to learn? Duplication of the human brain seems to be the next step.

    [PERSONALLY]: I would jump at the opportunity to be a test subject in any experiment of the kind. Imagine the power of a human brain connected to your cooperation n

    • Re:Immortality. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NightWulf ( 672561 )
      You can copy over a persons memories, heck their whole lives. The problem I forsee is you can't transfer their essence. What makes you..well you! Think of it like a play, take Hamlet for instance. Go see it acted out. Watch the pure essence of the story, the emotion of the actors, the grandness of the sets, etc. Now read the story in a book. Sure it's the exact words of the actors, it tells you what they're supposed to be saying, doing, feeling, but it's never quite the same. Sure it's the same information

      • Re:Immortality. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by wyldeone ( 785673 )
        I have to disagree. What is your essence other then your collective thoughts, memories and feelings?
      • This gets into the deeper question: what are we really? Is there more to a man (or woman, for the 3 female /.ers out there) than matter?

        If a person is merely matter, then we should be able to transfer the essence of them by analysing the matter thoroughly enough. Maybe the memories are stored data and the "essence" is the program that accesses it. If there is something more (a hotly debated subject since, well, subjects were invented) than perhaps no complete transfer is possible.

        The other issue is how mu
        • Or, if a person is merely matter, no transfer is possible. That's how I see it, at least.

          As an example (I considered this only when somebody ELSE brought it up, by the way, and it was my girlfriend's philosophy professor) I think that Star Trek transporters kill the people every time they're used. The matter is dissassembled, the person dies. The matter is reassembled into a new person that's exactly the same. It's impossible to tell that the person died, however, since the person is exactly the same, from
    • I think the next step is better understanding of our brain IO interfaces. Before doing that kind of transfer we should be very very sure about how to get data in and out of the brain data structure. I really don't want to be immortally deaf, dumb, blind, and in pain.
    • I don't think transfer of consiousness is possible, though this is more a philosophical question than a scientific one (for now!). Memories and personalities are just data. Consciousness is more ambiguous.

      There's some religion mixed in with this question, of course. I'm a pure atheist, and believe that humans are nothing more than machines. I believe that 'consciousness,' really, is just an illusion, created by intensely complex mental processes. I do not believe that there is any fundamental difference be
  • Wired had an article a few years ago about the Persinger Helmet.

    This device [wired.com] induces experiences that are similar to religious "miracles," where someone believes he or she has seen god. It does this by transmitting signals around your head.

    I'm not sure if anyone ever commercialized it.

  • I don't think anything like that would be adopted by society. First off unless you are dealing with eye to brain stimulus it'll be hard to interact with the brain through bone, flesh and hair. Unless people start plugging nueral connections into their body. Eventually it may be as normal as getting a piercing at the mall, but for the time being it's near impossible to merge organic with inorganic parts without heavy risks.

    Another issue would be the following. Do we really want something to interact direc

    • but for the time being it's near impossible to merge organic with inorganic parts without heavy risks.

      Agreed. Another entry point for infection is being created. But what if the interface didn't "break" the skin at all? We have pacemakers that operate completely inside the body. What if there was a tiny control unit placed completely under the skin and the communication with it was completey via inductance or something like that?

      I'm skeptical of messing with neurotransmitters, though. That's what Pr

  • Ouch (Score:2, Funny)

    by barista ( 587936 )
    Time for a tin-foil hat...
  • Your brain has been slashdotted!
  • It seems the natural input systems (sight, hearing) have a far greater bandwith than the natural output systems (visible motion, speech).

    Perhaps the more appropriate question is what conditioning might be involved in making existing mechanisms more efficiently related to whatever output mechanism (neural interface) is chosen to augment natural output systems.

    good political satire [the-torch.com]

  • Being a brain-hacker would be a lot more lucrative than defacing web-sites.

    So, do you think any 20-something female international royalty use the internet? Anyone got their IP's?

  • How I found out about it (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I saw a news article on biofeedback in treatment for ADD and ADHD - applications exist to play games for training you to behave better.
    AFAIK, add + adhd kids have messed up alpha waves (please correct me if I'm wrong), and the EEG machine listens to those. When they can conciously control the patterns of the alpha wave the game rewards them. Fairly successful too I heard. When I found out about it I instantly wanted to have a thought powered mouse.

    I also read something about the USAF and biofeedback flight
  • Matrix styled cyber sex.

    oh baby!
  • Unless you're a genius, please don't attempt homemeade devices to input anything directly into your brain. That sounds worse than creepy, it sounds like mail-order courses on open-heart surgery. The only thing I can think of for less that $100 that interacts directly with the brain is the standard drill. Leave the rest to experts and people who know what they're doing.

  • DIY neural interface (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mr. Roadkill ( 731328 ) on Sunday July 25, 2004 @11:35PM (#9798481)
    what about direct neural interfacing?
    Parts/Tools Required:

    Dremel with bone drill bit

    Heat shrink tubing

    13 Acupuncture Needles

    Hookup wire

    soldering iron

    DB25 cable,

    DB25 breakout box

    9V battery

    an observer.

    Difficulty: Intermediate/Suicidal

    Procedure:

    Drill holes at various spots on your head. Solder hookup wire to non-pointy ends of sufficient acupuncture needles, and use heatshrink tubing to cover almost all of the needles, leaving only 1mm uncovered at the pointy end. Using the 9V battery, and a return path via somehwere convenient and moist (I suggest your anus, what's a little more humiliation if you've gotten this far?) test your response to electic stimulation at various holes and depths. This is where the observer comes in handy, as you might be in no fit state to write down your observation, or even disconnect the current. Once you've found a useful set of needle positions, wire them up to your breakout box and plug it in to your printer port. Write software to apply a signal to each needle under various conditions.

    You could interface it with remote monitoring software, and a complete loss of bowel and bladder control could be used to indicate that a Windows machine on your network has crashed. Aphasia could be used to signify a loss of internet connectivity. And a throbbing erection could be used to signify yet another V1@gr@ spam in your inbox. Remember, you're limited only by your imagination and the rate at which infection sets in!

    • an observer.

      Or, for the more rational and less ethical of you, a test subject.

    • Re:DIY neural interface (Score:5, Interesting)

      by K-Man ( 4117 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @01:32AM (#9798927)
      You may laugh, but this isn't far from the procedure used to get high-quality EEG data. The stuff you get from outside the skull is generally junk.

      Researchers used to piggyback on severe epilepsy patients, whose condition had gotten so bad as to require surgery to remove or alter parts of the brain that triggered the seizures. This operation required a bit of reconaissance to find the offending grey matter, so a craniotomy (skylight in the cranium) was standard diagnostic procedure, and the operation usually had a few extra minutes for experimental measurements.

      Some of the more advanced people used to insert probes all the way into the brain to trigger the seizures; the whole process was guided by EEG's to gradually refine the location of the source.

      One of my programs was set up to take EEG's from an 8x8 electrode array, which was laid upon the brain after the skull and membrane were removed. I almost got to attend one such procedure live, but I was scratched from the roster at the last minute - that's a lesson as to why software shouldn't be too reliable.

      As far as using a soundcard, I'm not surprised at all. A soundcard is basically a two-channel A/D converter. You need a lot more channels to compete nowadays, but for the price, you can't beat the commodity hardware. The only additional hardware you need is a bank of preamps, and possibly a clock/timer board to make sure the sampling is precise. And, of course, a drill.

  • So, you wanna experiment with advanced homebrew human-computer interfaces; but you don't want to risk dangerous and painful do-it-yourself brain surgery in an nonsterile garage or basement lab.

    What about: subvocal speech input [nasa.gov] a and wireless earpiece [bluetoothparadise.com] ?

  • Pop-ups... (Score:2, Funny)

    by LaTechTech ( 752269 )
    OMG this could be completely awful...Imagine trying to think of something and then all of a sudden A huge pop-up comes out of nowhere ruining your entire train of thought...Or worse...you get drunk and forgot to turn off your instant messaging client...You start to instant message your buddies what you really think about them...I think being disconnected is very benificial...The porn thing has its downside to...ever click on the wrong link?

  • People to people (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Strandman ( 583695 )
    Connecting your brain to machines sounds interesting enough, but what about connecting your brain to another brain?
    That would really produce some interesting results, and all in all, for the first time oneself could really know what another person thinks.

  • it really could happen! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    serluny: how long did it took u to learn c?
    ReDPriest:4.5 minutes
    serluny:how did u do that?
    ReDPriest:i downloaded it into my brain..i got a program to do that
    serluny:what program
    ReDPriest:download shit into your brain v3.1
    serluny:how do i download it?
    ReDPriest: go to www.downloadable-shit-for-your-brain.com
    serluny:i cant download it something is wrong

    http://bash.org/ [bash.org]
  • Spyware is going to get intrusive, but the porn should be great!

    You're going to be able to download stuff that can't even be seen. Censorship issues will be interesting since you won't be downloading sensory images.


  • Getting logical, recognizeable data from the brain to a computer would a remarkable, world-transforming achievement!

    It would open up the possibility of a certain form of immortality - of being able to save all the things that make a person recognizeably unique, and having the possibility of re-creating that. In effect, creating a society where death is more a philosophical concept than an innevitability.

    Actually, the transfer in the other direction, computer-to-brain might not be something we want to be
  • Would you be able to control what data really comes in and out? You know there are bodies out there just salivating at the opportunity to find out what you know--without you knowing they know what you know.
  • I remember there was an Intel commercial with Homer Simpson getting his brain mod chipped, and at the end he's giving some academic lecture and has the "Intel Inside" logo tattooed on his head.

    What I'd be really interested to know is, well, if we have 32-bit CPUs and 64-bit CPUs, where would our brains score on that scale?

    Our visual recognition systems are very complex. But it's long been known that you only need a 2-bit system for a shave and a haircut.

    - Greg

  • Well.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by wviperw ( 706068 )
    "Where can I find out how to inject signals into my head?"

    1) Unplug coaxial cable from cable tv/cable modem (depending on personal preference).
    2) Jam into back of head.
    3) ???
    4) Profit!

  • some current research and conjecture... (Score:3, Informative)

    by asreal ( 177335 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @12:02AM (#9798616)
    is available here [wtec.org]. one of the most promising techniques seems to be self-assembling nanowires and sensors running through the blood vessels of the brain. lots of facinating reading.
  • I started asking this question in 1975.

    Astronomers used to complain (pre-Hubble) that observational astronomy was like looking at the sky through a dirty basement window. Imagine if the window was also painted and bricked over. There's thousands of people down there, some of them having conversations, some groups singing, and lots of them just ranting away at random. There's also a bunch of radios and TVs playing, all on different stations. And your job is to eavesdrop on one conversation. You know what it
  • I think the submitter believes that the EEG somehow magically pierces into the brain and that it would be a simple trick to just put some voltage on there and "make stuff happen."

    No.

    EEGs measure a gross aproximation of all signals it can pick up. You got something like 25 discs on your head trying to pick up any signal and then come out with a composite. Or you can look at each individual output and decide if there's some abnormalities. Heck, your cell phone is shooting 6 watts at your head and nothing
  • People are hardwired to be primarily visual. I doubt you can do a hack that will get better throughput than that already existing massively tuned interface. Ears are a close second.

    Eyes are actually tuned to analyze tons of info and discard almost all of it. Lots of processing happens before the signal even reaches the brain. I may be wrong; perhaps if the goal is to get lots of info into the brain unmunged the eyes aren't the way to go.
  • The website talks about the problems of using a cheapo soundcard to do EEGs...

    SoundcardEEG (scEEG) prototype BR> The idea

    Everyone has a sound input to their computer these days. If we used it to record EEG signals, the EEG hardware itself would be simpler and cost less.

    There is only one problem: Most audio systems, including sound cards, filter out frequencies below 20 Hz. The signals we want to capture are mostly below this frequency, so we can not just plug in the EEG amps and go.

    There is a wa

    • Yeah, shortcutting around the 20Hz filter seems a little silly. I did a fair amount of work with this EEG business not too long ago, creating an ad-hoc sensor network, indegrating ADC directly on the electrode. (Available here) [ncsu.edu] These ADCs cost less than 20 bucks a channel, (total, with COM and everything) and in even modest quantites could be made for much much cheaper. I think there is simulaneously too much excitement over the possibilites of EEG, and too little work done to further the technology for

    • Why FM (Score:3, Interesting)

      by XNormal ( 8617 )
      The reason for using frequency modulation is not just for bypassing the highpass filter on sound cards.

      You wouldn't connect anything attached to mains power to your head with low impedance electrodes, would you? Do you trust the USB port of your motherboard with your life?

      You need isolation. This is usually achieved with an optocoupler. An optocoupler is not so good at passing analog signals but passing a simple on/off FM signal through it is trivial. Isolating a serial digital signal is equally easy but

  • Spyware (Score:3, Funny)

    by ZeroExistenZ ( 721849 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @12:32AM (#9798745)
    "Hey, what are you up to?"
    "Neuro-surfing."
    "Oh cool.. anything good?"
    "Hold on.. *closes eyes* Appearantly Duke Nukem is about to come out."
    "Oh cool, where did you read that?"
    "*closes eyes* let me paste it into your head."
    "Thanks... *closes eyes* I wonder though.."
    "What?"
    "Do you have.. these... images and voices.. inside your head.."
    "That's what this is all about."
    "No.. these.. voices.. at night.. they haunt me.."
    "What do they say?"
    "3nlarg3 y0ur p3n1s now! |3uy \/|4gr4 N0w!"
  • What you mean I have to pay them each time I think about some song?

  • Hippocampal prosthesis -- and more! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Randym ( 25779 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @01:06AM (#9798841)
    I just read about the hippocampal prosthesis that has been developed and is about to be tested, and it made me wonder how close we now are to the scenario portrayed in the movie, The Matrix, where the characters are able to download new skills in the blink of an eye. From what I read, this prosthesis takes incoming signals from numerous brain regions and outputs data that has been parsed in a way that allows it to be encoded into long term memory. It occurs to me that if we are able to do this, we should also be able to record these outputs and reproduce them in others, thus transferring memories without the lived experiences...

    Of course, the parsing will be the tricky part. But once we have the hippocampal prosthesis, what's to stop us from creating other brain prostheses (other than the fact that implanting things into our brain currently constitutes major surgery)? For example, an amygdala prosthesis could help people with borderline personality disorder, since recent research seems to indicate that it is a *mis-wired* amygdala (due possibly to inadequate parenting and childhood psychological trauma) that causes the sudden rages so characteristic of this largely untreatable syndrome.

    Or imagine the Anti-aphasia bridge. You'd never be stuck searching for the right word ever again. How about the enhanced cochlea? Super-hearing! And haven't you always wanted to see into the ultraviolet? No problem with the Magnetic Resonance Optical Overlay Device.

    And, besides, I'm just waiting for this one:

    In the future, there will be a machine which will produce a religious experience in the user.
    --David Byrne, In The Future, Music from the Knee Plays

    It may be here sooner than we may think [godsdirectcontact.com], since we know now that the parietal lobes are implicated in these experiences.

  • Information Injection (Score:5, Informative)

    by cr0sh ( 43134 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @01:18AM (#9798885) Homepage
    Getting information out of the brain is going to be difficult at best - as others have noted, it is a very noisy output on the best of days. Filtering the noise, etc - tough, though not impossible to do. What is difficult is analysing the results (the brainwave plots). I remember an old Steve Ciarcia Workshop column or book (late 70's - early 80's) that detailed building your own EEG machine using cheap high-gain op-amps (designed for this work, with isolation and such - when you are dealing with electricity around the brain, you need safety above all else) - I can't remember, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if he didn't show how to interface it with an S-100 bus computer...

    Now, getting data into the brain, that would be easier. We have two main, "high bandwidth" conduits for input; the eyes and the ears. First off - look up "brainwave stimulation", "light and sound", etc - here's a few links:

    Hack Canada's Brain-Wave Machine [hackcanada.com]
    Futuremind Light & Sound [futuremind.com]
    Neural Signals, Inc [neuralsignals.com]

    There are other projects out there as well - just google, and you will find them.

    Also - look into "Neurophone" and "Voice to Skull" technologies - these use two systems: ultrasound and microwave. Of the two, microwave seems to offer direct neuron stimulation. Basically, on both systems, a carrier wave is set up and voice is FM modulated on top of the carrier wave. The signal is beamed to the subjects head. In the ultrasound version, the skull filters out the carrier wave, leaving the original signal, and bone conduction allows the subject to "hear" the original sound. In the microwave system, the brain itself does the filtering, and the brain then reconstructs the sound. Both systems suffer from major drawbacks in sound quality. Both versions are patented. NASA at one time was interested in the research. Basically, to the subject, it sounds like voices are speaking in their heads - and in the case of microwaves being used as the transmission medium (the research originally started when radar and microwave technicians reported hearing "clicking" type noise whenever they worked on live equipment), it makes you wonder about wearing tinfoil hats (hmmm). I know that the ultrasound version has recently been used as a testbed for "beaming" custom music or advertisements to people on an individual basis - I know /. stories have reported on this in the past (heck, you will find my comments in them on voice to skull).

    Anyhow - once you have a couple of ways to get data into the eyes and ears (and/or vestibular system) - and note, a good quality HMD could be used as a light/sound device - you then can play. I can see using the sound part to play music, and underneath the music have the sound binaural beat doing the brain-wave thing (basically, what you do is inject two different audio signals into the ears - say the left at 30 Hz, and the right at 36 Hz - which will yield a "beat tone" of around 6 Hz, which will make you drowsy, etc). Get the sound going, and sync up the eyes in a similar matter, to the sound. Maybe monitor (via IR leds and a camera) the eyes, see what they do, and if you can tell when you are in the meditative state - then alter the sound and/or visuals to force something different (say, ramp slowly from 10 Hz to 6 Hz - then hold at 6, then ramp quickly up to 7-8 Hz, injecting crazy patterns into the eyes - if using an HMD, maybe something like a visualization hack).

    Another thing or possibility would be the idea of computer controlled or directed lucid dreaming, via a brain-wave system - imagine donning the goggles and headphones, lying back, listening to a relaxing audio CD as the computer drops you down to a lucid dreaming state, then starts putting suggestions into your ears and eyes, suggesting and guiding a lucid dream (perhaps the computer could also monitor breathing rate, skin conductivity, etc - to help control the "dream")...

    Fascinating thoughts and ideas...

Slashdot Top Deals

The best defense against logic is ignorance.

Close