As we try and link ourselves ever closer to technology, the industry of human-computer interfacing is developing rapidly. I thought I’d check out the state-of-the art brain-PC interfaces, on the basis that if any of them seem good enough, they may change the way we use the internet forever.
1. OCZ Technology – Neural Impulse Actuator (£73)
Pitched as a gaming device, this headband combines a electromyograph (which detects the electrical potential generated by muscle cells), an electroencephalogram (which records electrical activity across the scalp), and electrooculograph (which detects electrical activity associated with eye activity). Phew. That’s the pitch anyway, although I think it may be simpler – it essentially detects electrical activity at 3-4 spots across the forehead, and uses software to try and discriminate between the different sources of that electrical activity: your forehead muscles, your eyes, or indeed your brain.
Various reports including this one from OC3D suggest that after a LOT of training, the headband can allow you to shoot enemies in games by slightly raising an eyebrow, or clenching your teeth. Response times (promised as at the speed of thought) haven’t been shown to be much faster than mouse, even after quite some training.
Verdict: Unproven, probably too simplistic, but an interesting start
2. Emotiv Systems – ($299)
Emotiv have been developing their headset for a couple of years now, and it’s finally being released on New Year’s Eve. Again, their target is console games, and Emotiv use both scalp electrical activity, and sensing of facial expressions to deliver gaming control. Their 2008 launch was delayed because “The public demo didn’t go as planned; the device simply didn’t work in front of the media who attended the press conference”. Hm.
As it hasn’t been launched, it seems that few independent review have been done, so the jury is still out. However, just on the basis that it detects facial expressions, it probably has greater potential than OCZ’s
Verdict: Unproven, but facial expression recognition could be interesting
3. Neurosky Headset – ($199)
Neurosky appear to have built the biggest ecosystem around their headset – games, integration with music visualization, bluetooth cellphone integration. However, their headset only has 1 (yes, 1) sensor, which supposedly shows your “emotional state and how you react to the world”. This really is the most remote from believable “brain control”.
Verdict: Interesting (and smart commercially), but ultimately just a toy
Conclusion
I started looking at this area thinking I’d find a bunch of companies trying to commercialise “thought control”. I only found three key players, and none of them represent what I can see as being a realistic attempt at getting mass-market mind control of computers.
Part of the problem is that it’s hopelessly simplistic to try and read the brain by measuring electrical activity across the scalp. Of course, it can result in some simple communication or control of a cursor on the screen – which is a life-saver in the caseof severe disability or paralysis, where it’s enabled a patient to communicate. However, the ability to do complex tasks just isn’t possible yet (or ever?) without invasive brain surgery – or a far greater number of more sensitive and calibrated sensors across the scalp.
However, there is hope in sight. DARPA, for instance, has $4m in 09/10 for “Silent Talk” – a project that aims to “allow user-to-user communication on the battlefield without the use of vocalized speech through analysis of neural signals.” And DARPA generally does interesting things with its research budgets – cars that can autonomously navigate complex environments being probably the highest profile example.
I’m watching this space – the day we can control computers using a mix of keyboard, mouse AND thought (I don’t believe that thought will, for a long while, replace manual control) is that day that the internet becomes truly fast and immersive. I can’t wait.
UPDATE: The crew at Neurosky were switched on enough to catch this post, and send me a whitepaper with some stats in it. Seems their single electrode compares favorably with a Biopac, a well-used medical wet-electrode EEG system. I don’t have time to analyse the data, nor can I verify it – but if it’s true, then good job Neurosky (I’m actually more impressed with the fact they caught this post). I’m still unsure about how useful the technology is today, though…
admin AI
Start typing something into google, and the now established “autocomplete” or live suggestions or whatever it’s called today pops up. I thought I’d take a look at the Zeitgeist, and see what each letter brings (and the #2 result in brackets). All pretty big-brand, although the second most common search beginning with an “r” is “reverse phone lookup”? Seems like an unanswered mega-site right there.
There’s a whole lot of talk about “real time” just now – from Google’s realtime search, to games, processing power, and medicine. And yet it strikes me that “realtime” (or is it real-time or real time?) is overused, and often meaningless.
What’s even more fascinating is how we SEE the movie. When we blink, we lose up to 10% of our viewing time. So it’s really important that we time those blinks to moments when we won’t miss anything too important happening on the screen. And that means that in an average movie (or YouTube clip), most of us will blink at the same time.
The problem is in part that information covers a huge array of things: from “what time is it?” to “which stock should I buy” – and a whole complicated spectrum in-between. And no-one can draw a line to say where the charging should begin.
