IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Devices that read human thought now possible

Kalman Rubinson kr4 at nyu.edu
Mon Nov 10 21:57:15 EST 2003

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:45:47 GMT, "Allen L. Barker"
<alb at datafilter.com> wrote:

>An MEG is a different sort of instrument, designed for a different
>task.  Much of the functionality of the sorts of devices described
>here is in the *analysis* of the signals.  I'm not the one to ask for
>one; maybe inquire with your favorite secret military contractor.
>Ring up John Norseen at Lockheed Martin and see what he is allowed
>to tell you of what he is allowed to know:
>    http://www.us.net/signal/Archive/Oct01/decoding-oct.html

Thanks but there's nothing surprising in this one. First, the sensors
are not defined but seem to be MEG anyway.  Second, the multiparameter
analysis is nothing unusual and is be conducted at many sites for many
purposes.  Third, there seems to be an intent to sound more complex
and secretive than is needed and there's some really silly stuff in
here, as well. Mind you, I am not saying that the intended purpose is
impossible; it's merely statistical.   BTW, the reference quoted below
says very little.


>Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>> Hah! Let us have one when you can so that we can replaced our MEG.
>> Kal
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:14:21 GMT, "Allen L. Barker"
>> <alb at datafilter.com> wrote:
>>>[Now that such things are openly known to be possible it is
>>>time to consider the ethical and human rights issues involved.
>>>It is actually well past time, but better late than never.
>>>Such technologies can help the disabled and could even enhance
>>>our ordinary cognition.  But they can also be used nonconsensually
>>>-- in situations like interrogations -- in ways which would justify
>>>the term mind rape.  Such devices can be designed into torture
>>>implements, to turn the brain's own signals against it to inflict
>>>enhanced psychological (and concomitant physical) injuries.
>>>Such nonconsensual testing and application of the technologies
>>>and techniques may be carried out under the false cover of
>>>psychiatric illness -- with plenty of historical precedent,
>>>Devices that read human thought now possible, study says
>>>Brain implants could help severely disabled
>>>Carl T. Hall, Chronicle Science Writer
>>>New Orleans -- Less than a month after a widely heralded experiment
>>>showed how thought-reading implants can work in monkeys, scientists
>>>presented new findings Sunday suggesting such machines could work in
>>>people, too.
>>>Dr. Miguel A.L. Nicolelis of Duke University said previously
>>>unreported human experiments demonstrated success with one type of a
>>>so-called brain computer interface, or BCI.
>>>He and others discussed their latest findings Sunday at the annual
>>>meeting in New Orleans of the Society for Neuroscience, the world's
>>>largest gathering of brain researchers. About 28,000 people are
>>>attending the weeklong event.
>>>Much of the attention on Sunday was given to technology designed to
>>>overcome paralyzing injuries or illnesses afflicting the nervous
>>>system. About 11,000 new cases arise every year, adding to a total
>>>estimated at more than 200,000.
>>>Nicolelis said the new study had been done in a few Parkinson's
>>>disease patients while they were undergoing open-skull neurosurgery
>>>for their disease.
>>>Full results, he said, have been submitted for peer review to a
>>>scientific journal and were not a formal part of the program, in which
>>>he and colleagues reported new details from the monkey experiments
>>>already published.
>>>Nicolelis said the important point was that the principle had been
>>>shown to work: People can control devices merely by thinking.
>>>Ultimately, it may be possible to design high-tech implants that can
>>>read and direct the muscles using the patient's own intentions and
>>>natural sensory equipment.
>>>For now, it's a much less grandiose business of just tuning the
>>>equipment to the human brain's frequency.
>>>In the Duke experiments, patients were being fitted with standard
>>>electrical stimulator devices, which can help to control Parkinson's
>>>This procedure requires the patient to be awake while the surgeon
>>>identifies a safe route through brain tissue, taking care not to harm
>>>brain cells needed for essential functions. As part of that process,
>>>the surgeon periodically asks the patient to speak or move while
>>>recording localized brain activity.
>>>Nicolelis and his colleagues took advantage of the opportunity and
>>>recorded the information the surgeon was obtaining. Then, for
>>>five-minute periods while the patient was being operated on, they
>>>conducted simple reaching-and-grasping experiments to determine
>>>whether the patient's intentions could accurately be read -- the first
>>>essential step in controlling a limb by computer implant.
>>>That's a far cry from proving that a workable long-term implant would
>>>be safe and effective. Nicolelis said it was much too soon to "even
>>>think about" moving any particular device into full-blown clinical
>>>A competing group, however, led by founders and collaborators of a
>>>company called Cyberkinetics Inc., has announced plans to begin a
>>>small safety study next year of an implant designed to allow a
>>>paralyzed patient to control a desktop computer.
>>>That device, called "BrainGate," is based on research at Brown
>>>led by scientist John Donaghue. He and other company officials
>>>described the technology on Sunday as a "novel gateway" for people
>>>with no other options.
>>>"These are the opening days of a new era in neurotechnology," Donaghue
>>>The competition, however, has gotten somewhat testy of late amid an
>>>explosion of interest. Some scientists accuse Nicolelis of
>>>overreaching, noting that his latest monkey experiment actually wasn't
>>>the first to show a "thoughts-into-action" device could function in a
>>>primate; he was merely the first to show that a monkey's brain firings
>>>could be harnessed to direct complicated movement, involving both
>>>reaching and grasping.
>>>Meanwhile, Nicolelis decried the entry of corporate interests into a
>>>field once thought to be purely science fiction, now being taken
>>>seriously as modern medicine at the cutting edge of technology.
>>>"I am a university professor," Nicolelis said. "I have no interests in
>>>any business. I am Brazilian -- I want to have fun, I don't want to
>>>make money. What I am very afraid of is that people who really want to
>>>make a buck out of this will be rushing into the clinical thing. I
>>>don't believe in that. A lot of important science needs to be done,
>>>and we need to go step by step in a very careful way."
>>>All the labs claim to be pursuing the technology responsibly.
>>>Donaghue and his colleagues pointed out they were also university
>>>scientists who realized the only way to fully exploit the technology
>>>was to form a company capable of raising the money needed to carry out
>>>very expensive clinical studies. Cyberkinetics is proceeding with the
>>>guidance of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
>>>In the latest studies on people, Nicolelis' Duke group had to use a
>>>simplified version of the animal study protocol to stay within the
>>>bounds of a five-minute surgical window. But that was still enough,
>>>Nicolelis said, to show animal and human brains can be read much in
>>>the same way.
>>>"We are showing the same computational algorithms work, the same
>>>technology in general works, suggesting the principle would work in a
>>>patient that is severely handicapped," Nicolelis said. "We are able to
>>>predict the hand position, and the hand force, while they are doing
>>>the task during the surgery."
>>>Before you can lift even a finger, nerves fire in the brain, along the
>>>spinal cord and nerve pathways of the arm, then back again in a
>>>tightly controlled feedback loop.
>>>Douglas J. Weber, of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, reported
>>>new research Sunday suggesting that the motion of a limb can be
>>>accurately predicted by reading the firings of just a handful of brain
>>>cells -- only 10 or so in one case.
>>>That means it may be simpler than once imagined to tap into the body's
>>>own sensory apparatus to keep some natural motion going with a brain
>>>implant merely as a detour around a damaged spinal cord or other
>>>problem in the brain's natural circuitry.
>>>Dr. Jonathan Wolpaw of the New York State Department of Health's
>>>Wadsworth Center described new methods of reading signals that can be
>>>detected outside and just beneath the surface of the skull, suggesting
>>>the possibility that some devices may not even have to be implanted
>>>into the brain. Implants run some risk of infections and other
>>>But he and others emphasized it might be several years before the
>>>first such devices were ready for widespread use, and they noted that
>>>the technology worked only in individuals who might be utterly
>>>disabled and "locked in," with no ability to move even their eyes, and
>>>yet had enough healthy brain activity to drive the implants.
>>>The revolution will start slowly, Wolpaw said, in a few people "who
>>>are the most disabled and who have no other options."

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net