>> Given the current state of the science, is it possible to attach
>electrodes
>> to someones brain and read their thoughts? If it is not, then, what is
>your projection for the time at which it will be possible?
>i read that early in the 80s someone monitored their own EEG's
>and successfully trained their brains to give various localized
>signal patterns. i guess using that same apparatus (multichannel
>EEG) one could train an artificial neural net to recognize EEG
>patterns while classifying his own thoughts at the moment, and
>using that as the target (supervised training).
>the difficulty is in obtaining enough data and finding someone
>patient enough to do this for extended periods of time. fMRI
>is another possibility. i guess researchers could build EEG /
>fMRI databases to enable this type of analysis.
>>so i think the bottleneck is that not many people are doing
>this type of research, and secondly might be computer power.
>>hmmm.. if under my supervision.. 10 years? =))
Read Richard Norman's response - he is correct as far as I am concerned on all
major points.
The EEG is an averaged response from many millions of neurons. What is lost
in the averaging is all the detail like what the person is thinking, the EEG
just tells you WHETHER they are thinking (their brain state: asleep, relaxed
etc)
In principle you really would need to know what each neuron is doing - fMRI
has time and space resolution problems, EEG has space resolution problems. It
is not inconceivable that new technology could allow us to simultaneously
monitor the activity of billions of neurons, but to interpret the role of each
of the neurons would probably take more than thelifetime of each individual
that you tried to analyse.
--
Dr Richard Vickery
School of Physiology & Pharmacology, UNSW, Australia, 2052
ph. 61 2 93851676, fax 61 2 93851059
http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/Physiology/School/staff/vickery/Welcome.html
