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…

Of course one of the basic truths about screenwriting (particularly US screenwriting) is the common structure of movie screenplay.  There’s a focus point in the narrative around page 15, a turning point around page 30, another focus point around midway, and a final turning point about 15 pages or so from the end (each page translates roughly to a minute).  Analysis shows that the vast majority of US movies are based on this formula – next time you watch a movie, check it out, it works.

This, and countless books and research, all point towards stories having a basic, common structure.  So it made perfect sense to me when I read about people looking at the concept of an ”Automyth“.  People (mainly in and around computer gaming) are looking at this, so there’s a lot of reference to fairy tales and ghosts and wizards and everything Terry Pratchett-esque.  For instance someone has created an online “Fairy Tale Generator” at http://www.brown.edu/Courses/FR0133/Fairytale_Generator/gen.html which does an okay job of fixing up a tale based on a bunch of selected inputs like “victory”, “rescue” or “difficult task”.

True, mainstream Automovies or Autobestseller novels are a little way away, it seems, but can it be that long before the first computer-generated bestseller hits a screen near you.  The technology to create the visual image, spoken word and automated music are there already.  All we’re missing is a piece of software that can generate a decent story.

UPDATE: Julian just sent me the following tweet: @alexkelleher I am the friend Alex helped; great blog in light of claims the 3 acts doesn’t work. Read Bettleheim Uses of Enchantment.

I’ve talked previously about the early steps machines are making towards autonomy, and combine this with weaponry and you’ve got yourself the plot of a couple of dozen Hollywood movies.  Isaac Asimov’s 3 rules for robots may be needed sooner than we thought! (In case you hadn’t seen them before, they are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.)

Now that’s all very well for I, Robot, but autonomy in robots will inevitably be reached well before they’re intelligent enough to use that autonomy, or are capable of sticking to rules.  Relatively simple AI will be used in machines that potentially have access to damaging/lethal technology.

Think that’s impossible?  The headline above is real, and to quote the article “the robot suddenly came to life and grabbed a tight hold of the victim’s head. The man succeeded in defending himself but not before suffering serious injuries.”

Prof. Sharkey is calling for debate on autonomous military robots, and it’s timely – but probably won’t happen until one of these military robots does something “wrong”, such as a friendly fire incident.  Be that as it may, A.I. (or at least highly trained autonomous machines) is of course being developed on in a lot of diverse areas.  And given military budgets, it’s quite possible some of the first properly autonomous and intelligent machines will carry a weapon…

A group of scientists in Missouri and North Carolina have used bacteria to find solutions to an (essentially mathematical) problem: navigating a group of dots so that each dot is only crossed through once, and then returning the first dot – as in the image on the right.  It’s called the Hamiltonian Path Problem, if you’re interested.

So, it’s not quite Windows 8 yet.   In fact, the importance of the study has been questioned variously, but the reason I love it is that it’s using living organisms to find correct answers to mathematical problems, by simply chucking a designed molecule at them.  We’re starting simple (and slow), but then so did computers.   Anyone remember the ZX81?

Some other developments in this space over recent years include:

• DNA computers that can diagnose cancer
• Leech neurons that can do sums
• Molecular devices that only treat cells that need it

So why is this all important? Solving hugely difficult computational problems like predicting the weather or curing complex diseases has two approaches now.  The first is “synthetic”: computers, silicon, small machines with cogs and motors, and the like.

The second is “organic”: recognising millions of years of evolution, and saying – how can we use that?  Given that a lump of biological material can create something as fantastically capable as a human brain, why not harness the same systems to do other things?

And that’s where the genius is: short-cutting innovation by harnessing what’s already out there.

It’s not quite jumping into the car to fetch Pizza, and really, it’s a very long way from our persistent dreams of useful, humanoid robots.  That seems to have been the status quo on Robot AI for quite some time now.  Behind the scenes though, they promise us, greater things are happening to the code that underlies this sort of behaviour.  Certainly these guys, Microsoft, and probably half a dozen others are trying to come up with a Robot OS – a common platform for developing Robot AI on.  This should help, but I expect that the leaps/bounds towards humanoid robots will take something more significant.

I spent the morning with the bright students at Hult University here in London who are working on a marketing project for my company right now, and we spent a bit of time discussing how A.I. and those sorts of technologies could start to become part of next wave of technologies.  At a stretch, what’s happening with Robots like PR 2 Alpha is part of this (if only he can find a way out of the building…).  But I believe it will be this kind of work, combined with a LOT of different, diverse and currently unconnected technologies to make the leap to something that can “fend for itself”.

Today for a while, when a plane passed overhead (they do often where I am), the bulb on my desk lamp dimmed. I, of course, assumed the two events were related.  The fact is, planes passed over every couple of minutes, and the light only dimmed every half hour, and I’ve just now found it’s because I was kicking the cable under the table without knowing it.  They’re unconnected…

That’s what psychologists call an illusory correlation – the false connection of two things, based on data.   (it’s also a tongue-twister).

Sod’s law (Murphy’s Law) is a example – we tend to connect negative events, and ignore positive (or neutral) ones.  How often have you been driving along, only to be confronted at the top of a hill and round a bend with a truck that’s halfway across the road?  “Always happens at the top of a hill and round a bend, typical!” you’ll think.  Obviously, 99% of the time it doesn’t, but we’ll remember the times it does.

So why is this important?  Well, it usually isn’t, because we muddle along anyway.  It can get odd when unexplained events (lights in the sky) are connected with unconfirmed causes (UFOs from outer space).  Or when “there’s no smoke without fire”, which has probably convicted a fair number of innocent people. 

My interest is because at my company, Cognitive Match (of which Favy is now a part) we’re focussed on ways of making REAL connections in observed data.  And equally I guess uncovering the “illusory” ones…

This is what I got from a quick chat with Elbot:

E: Hello dear user and welcome to Elbot! Just wondering, could you enter a single word that describes your energy level?

Variable

E: Well, my biorythms are all mixed up. Maybe because I’m not biological.

Way to give the loebner prize away!

E: Do you think you will win the Loebner prize?

oh sure

E: Please say that in some other way. I am not able to process ironic statements.

And so on, but much more random as time went on.  Not sure I’d want to meet the 25% that were fooled, but you can make your own mind up by chatting to Elbot right now: http://www.elbot.com/