Jump to content

Talk:Brain–computer interface/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

an EEG STORY - 1984 - Electronic system prearranged to replace in the electronic games the existing manual controls with equivalent controls directly commanded by the brain. 1984

sorry I'm Italian and I do not speak good English.

I'm looking for help to put this news in English Wikipedia

If we turn that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia actually decent would be the case that someone read who are the inventors of Principles of the decoding of brain waves, two scientists, one of which is dead is invalid and the other be right that their names are placed in the history of EEG.

The names of two inventors are Vinicio de Bortoli and Ugo Licinio. Vinicio de Bortoli is paraplegic and Ugo Licino died.

have discovered how to transform an analog signal into digital allowing you to be able to use this decoding system all you need to control mouse, computers, airplanes etc. ..

thousand thanks --Odissea (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


P.s.

you search in database Eu Patent Electronic system prearranged to replace in the electronic games the existing manual controls with equivalent controls directly commanded by the brain

A patent application is not a good enough reference. Anybody can file a patent application. There are many patent applications for perpetual motion machines. This should not go into the article unless the information can be found in a published paper or high-quality book. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I put the link that is the grant of the patent and is also proof of the date of deposit of the principle. many companies including Mindbal and Neurosky and Sega Master Sega Master System have used it to make machines and other, and therefore these two Scientists are entitled to a space on Vikipedi for their research and the contribution they have made to humanity.

cordial greetings --Odissea (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any published evidence that all of these companies have used the patent as the basis for their products? Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
One of the inventors, Vinicio De Bortoli already has his own article on Wikipedia...with a similar claim also sourced to a patent link. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
De Bortoli article may violate WP:N notability and involves scientific claims, so posted for discussion at WP:FTN. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

IN database at the European Patent Office that he is defined along with Professor Ugo Licinio is the one who filed the first patent decoding

other companies have taken and copied and the principles they respect enough to look at the references in the database

On this, if in the article that mentions encephalography or EEG is said that the company is producing neurosky Mindball or games or other or that research on non-invasive methods have been carried out by: example y Without loss of and the names of these of these scientists have discovered the principle of the decoding of brain waves ... wiki news that we are not corresponding to the truth.

and therefore the Wikipedia itself loses credibility if it does not report on the news with reliable source such as a European database that can guarantee that on that date "1984" two scientists brevetatto their discovery or the decoding system of brain waves.

one last thing the proffessore Ugo Licinio and died without seeing the merit of this great discovery and the engineer Vinicio De Bortoli seriously ill and their patents have expired and therefore there is no problem with copyright or advertising to a company, but it is rather to restore the truth and make and give due space to this person in the encyclopedia world, after have seen the great contribution that these two scientists have discovered with their humanity without having done business from this discovery .


--Odissea (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In his Italian website [1] De Bortoli claims he didn't graduate, so he's not an engineer. Moreover, he claims the alien gave him the BCI technology, so he didn't invented it. Finally, as cited in this page about BCI, the first known BCI was made in 1973, so since his patent was made in 1986 he's clearly not the first inventor of BCI. --tsu (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2010 (CEST)

Logical Analysis of BCI Rammifications

wouldnt it be nice to have an unbiased analysis of BCI rammifications? the subject seems fundamentally prone to attractiving panic. like the jaws of scifi horror genre. im sure few want to start tackling this but i suggest we take a preemptive step in debunking the most illogical fears before they end a fluke triggers a wild fire. "no, communists arent brain washing your baby. i promise. already checked wikipedia."

Brainstorming phase (please add any potential fears)

legal rammifications: evidence collection/intent

military: war crimes, national security privacy,

sociological: mind reading, privacy

psychological: perosnality alteration, trust,

economic: classism/privledges, trade secret privacy, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkbg (talk • contribs) 20:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this needs WP:EL review, so I'll just add another possible article here

Prominent research successes

I removed this part: "By 2050, and likely sooner, you will be able to buy a BCI device that records all your dreams in their entirety. This will be done in one of two ways. One method would be to use distributed nanobots less than a micrometer in diameter to spread throughout the brain and monitor the activation patterns of neurons. By this point, cognitive science will have advanced enough to know which neural activation patterns correspond to which sensory experiences." First, it's not original but copied from several websites (just paste and copy it to google you'll find them). And then, it's completely fictional, there are not scientific basis for it. No BCI research was ever done on sleep and dream research. Tsu451 (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it seems like that info could use more reputable sourcing.-Tesseract2(talk) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Artificial telepathy

I removed this part: "Research is ongoing into synthetic or computer-mediated telepathy which would allow user-to-user communication through analysis of neural signals.[1] The research aims to detect and analyze the word-specific neural signals, using EEG, which occur before speech is vocalized, and to see if the patterns are generalizable.[1] As of 2009, the research is focused on military uses.[1]". Telepathy (even if artificial) is not Brain-Computer Interface. It makes no sense at all to have such a section here. Not to talk about the fact that there is no scientific paper about it (and standing the basis of BCIs at the present moment I doubt that could be something in the next future, but this is my opinion). Tsu451 (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that information was precisely relevant. In fact, from the sound of it, it takes not one - but two soldiers performing direct brain-computer interface to make this "synthetic telepathy" work. Could you be objecting to Wired magazine's use of the word "Telepathy"?
The pentagon's research is extremely relevant, especially if presented in a good source like Wired magazine (and at that point, regardless of whether there are any papers I would think).-Tesseract2(talk) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree both here and on the subsequent topic for the same reason: the idea of a possible use it's not encyclopedic. Would it be encyclopedic if I write a book where I say that we could use a spaceship to go back in the future? The idea could be very interesting, but since there is no such a thing right now it's pure speculation. Even if Wired reviews my book. When there will be such a thing we could add in the page that source as the first one who came with the idea. But up to now, not only there isn't something like that but in our case they didn't even invent the spaceship! Tsu451 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we getting are closer to identifying the issue of contention: should Wikipedia describe ongoing research or people's forward-looking conjectures? The relevant guidelines seem to be WP:Speculation. In short, it seems that speculation is appropriate for Wikipedia sometimes. I think that verdict is summarized well when they say that "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses" (emphasis my own). I moved even the pentagon research into an explicit "Fiction or speculation" section. I would argue that the section and current contents are appropriate. But mostly, I appreciate this discussion. I hope we can agree on a compromise.-Tesseract2(talk) 14:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion either, I'm not here in order to do a useless flame. I found on the DARPA website the PDF with the budget and I will had it as a source. Having read this, what I do not agree here now it's the use of the term telepathy which is completely misleading and not used in the description of the project. I still do not agree on the "World Wide Mind" and I explain you below why. Tsu451 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
On a second thought it's a use of non-invasive communication through BCIs. It shouldn't be in this section but cited as a military use. Tsu451 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"World Wide Mind"

I removed this part: "Michael Chorost in his book World Wide Mind: The Coming Integration of Humanity, Machines, and the Internet published in 2011 describes how brain-computer interface development may be used to design a mind-to-mind technology that would let humans reconnect with their bodies and enhance their relationships in order to achieve a collective consciousness – a World Wide Mind." This is fictional. Tsu451 (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I brought back the information (also I added a source for a review) because it is exploring brain-computer interface. I did move it to be more clearly under the mention of "fiction". Or perhaps you believe it belongs on the page Brain implant#Brain implants in fiction and philosophy? Either way, I think deleting should be more of a last resort if the information could be good somewhere on Wikipedia.-Tesseract2(talk) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The argument I used in the section 'Artificial telepathy' it's even stronger here. Because in that topic you could at least argue that someone said that someone else is trying to develop that. Here it doesn't exist at all. This should be removed. Tsu451 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
In the above Artificial telepathy section you cite the guidelines about Speculation: WP:Speculation. It's true that it says ""It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur" but it also says that "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view".

What is not completely clear to me and we should discuss it's whether the acceptable speculation should be made by "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities" or could be made by anyone. Because in the guidelines it seems to me a little open to interpretation. This is because I do not think that the author Michael Chorost is a "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in the field". He has a cochlear implant which he defines as a computer, but which is not really a BCI. He has a Ph.D. (not exactly sure in what) but he never claimed he worked on BCI. A brief search on PubMed revealed no publications about the topic. He has an interest on it, and the book here cited is his first book about it. To me it doesn't seem worthed a citation in this page. Tsu451 (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's cool if you looked up a bit more about him. If you are sure he has no publications or a relevant PhD, then he may not be "recognized" expert. In that case, you can remove him if you like!-Tesseract2(talk) 23:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Science decodes 'internal voices'

Is the study "Reconstructing Speech from Human Auditory Cortex" at PloS Biology (by Brian N. Pasley, Stephen V. David, Nima Mesgarani, Adeen Flinker, Shihab A. Shamma, Nathan E. Crone, Robert T. Knight and Edward F. Chang) already included/ reported? see [2] Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be remarkable, considering that it was only published yesterday. Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
You had a whole 44 minutes there! haha. But it looks like it's quite relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is a suggested new addition, but it may need trimming. I would not want to put it in an inapprpriare location in the article, although a new section for "Speech" under "Non-invasive BCIs" might be possible:
"In January 2012 it was reported that researchers had demonstrated a method of reconstructing words based on the brain waves of patients thinking of those words, by monitoring the superior temporal gyrus of their brains.[3](“Science decodes 'internal voices'“, by Jason Palmer Science and technology reporter, at bbc.co.uk/news)
In an earlier 2011 study participants with electrodes in direct brain contact were able to move a cursor on a screen by simply thinking of vowel sounds.[4] (Leuthardt, E.C, Gaona, C., Sharma. M., Szrama. N., Roland. J., Freudenberg. Z., Solis, J., Breshears, J. and Schalk, G., Using the electrocorticographic speech network to control a brain–computer interface in humans, ‘’ Journal of Neural Engineering’’, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2011.)
The 2012 study by Pasley et. al., reported in the journal PLoS Biology [5], used fMRI to track blood flow in the brain. The superior temporal gyrus is one of the "higher-order" brain regions that enable linguistic sense to be made of the sounds people hear. The study monitored the STG brain waves of 15 patients who were undergoing surgery for epilepsy or tumours, while playing audio of a number of different speakers reciting words and sentences. With the aid of a computer model, when patients were presented with words to think about, the team was able to guess which word the participants had chosen.
Potential therapeutic implications for the restoration of communication for a wide range of disorders, such as those patients with comatose and locked-in syndrome, were anticipated, although the study authors voiced caution. The thought-translation idea would need to be vastly improved before actual prosthetics became a reality."
Or maybe Pasley et al is not about an "interface" at all, but is just a set of observations which belongs, if anywhere, in the article for fMRI. While Leuthardt et al might belong here as it involves electrodes in the brain and a cursor on a computer screen. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(Don't all rush at once, now. Maybe it's because I'm "a troll with an agenda", allegedly.) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh well, someone finally added something akin to Leuthardt et al 2011. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

ELF/SLF/ULF Radio - misrepresentation?

Perhaps the proposed new section should be fully discussed here first, before being re-added?

The sources provided so far are these:

But these are all abstracts to pay-for-view artilces. Unless there is material within those articles not mentioned in any of the abstracts, there is simply no support for the claim that "Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) utilising ELF/SLF/ULF bands can be achieved, as radio energy in these frequency ranges can be absorbed by neurons." Indeed, no mechanism for any kind of "interface" is described. The techniques describe possible and entirely theroetical bases for brain control via external RF energy.

What references, or parts of references, can be offered in support of the later claims in the proposed new section? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The claim is very improbable, and the references that have been cited to support it are far from compatible with WP:MEDRS. I have removed that material. Looie496 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


All necessary information is supplied in the abstracts. A BCI like this only need to cause neurons to fire to work properly. The abstracts show that this is possible. What you guys are complaining about is that no one says this is a "BCI". The only difference between this work and a full BCI, is complexity of the transmitter. These articles show the basic theory and basic application of that theory. So, I feel what is at issue here, is your understanding of what is being described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.47.92 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, one might theorise that gasoline compressed in a cylinder and ignited by a spark might cause an explosion. But that hardly means you have built an automobile, does it? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
But unlike your "theory", this was tested and found to work. That's what the articles show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.47.92 (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. How many neurons was that they used? And how how many in the typical average human cortex? And this is "an interface" you say, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that line of reasoning sounds plausible to you, but it is not valid. The articles show that different frequencies induce firings in different neurons, or clusters. To achieve integration with something like 'touch', may only take 20-40 signals. Its not a lot and the only difference between that and the articles is transmitter complexity. The basic interface remains the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.47.92 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh I see, not valid. And, it may take only 20-40 signals, you say. So, tiny practical details like "complexity" notwithstanding, is this a BCI or a CBI? And what is "the computer" trying to achieve here exactly? And how does "the computer" know when it has been achieved? And this is "an interface", yes? But I am very keen to see your sources for the involvement of Ivan Pavlov. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The "interface" is really only how to send and receive information. That is, it only refers to capturing a signal and sending it back. You are talking about "the computer", which is interpretation of those signals. No doubt this is similar to any form of pattern analysis, it would have a database of firing patterns. That however, is a completely different issue. As for Pavlov, if its a basic interface, I suppose it could connect a sensation to an event. Rather like the food and bell. I see no issues with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.47.92 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I am truely stunned. Just entirely lost for words. I think I'd better leave this issue to other, more patient editors. The best advice I can give you is this: "you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment." Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see why? There is nothing overly complicated in the material. It seems to me that you have some form of personal aversion to this material. Fair enough, I am a scientist who works in this area, but the material should be fairly obvious even to the lay man. May I ask, what is your background in BCI's? I only ask because you seem to have a distorted view of what was necessary to achieve a BCI. Your comment on the number of neurons in the cortex appeared to suggest that you needed to interface with the brain as a whole and that was completely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.47.92 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is what it comes to, in my view. The Taiwanese work is theoretical and cast at the level of one or two neurons -- extending it to a BCI is original speculation, which is against Wikipedia policy. The only ref that really talks at the BCI level is the Persinger paper, which itself is completely speculative and has not received any attention since it was published except in the contexts of psychosis and general mysticality. My view is that this idea does not have enough support in the mainstream scientific literature to justify including in this article. Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The work is NOT theoretical, it has been done. Theory proved. In itself, that is a very basic BCI. Extending that is a transmitter issue, not an interface issue. Persinger's paper was just to show the "public development" of this theory. I completely disagree that there lacks sufficient information, all information required to replicate and expand upon the work is presented in those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.47.92 (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I work in a related field and hadn't heard about this technique before. As such, it appears more an active research area than a well-established technique. If anything, I would advice to condense this section and tone it down, for instance remove statements about control of complex reasoning and "mind control" .TjeerdB (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Its more than an active research area at this point. Implementations are propriety and do have real world applications. I think the statements on "mind control" help to balance the section. No doubt the question would arise and such use is extremely obvious. It is there to show that no one has figured out these aspects yet, nor are they even close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.94.218 (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's not really specific for this technique as none of the techniques is close to be used for such purposes. I see that someone already removed it. It would help if you could replace some of the primary sources by a secondary source (review paper). See WP:NOR. This article may also help to explain some of the problems with this section. For instance, the statement "Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) utilising ELF/SLF/ULF bands can be achieved" appears to be a "synthesis of published material that advances a position".TjeerdB (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Its not a synthesis of the material, that is your misinterpretation of the articles. The articles demonstrate an interface, they do not speculate that one exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.48.171 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you please provide a review article that supports this interpretation? TjeerdB (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If you are unable to understand the work, perhaps it is best that you excuse yourself from the discussion at this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.48.171 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a scientific forum, it's a encyclopedia. If you're new to Wikipedia, you could first familiarize yourself with its procedures and ethics. No need to be rude. It doesn't help your argument. My position is that if there is no review paper supporting the interpretation that this technique can be used for BCI then this section should be removed. TjeerdB (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I came here via a note that Looie left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience, and I feel pretty able to assess the source material. I've read what's available of the sources cited. I'm going to partly agree with 92.23.48.171, and support inclusion of a shorter, two sentence, version that is on the page at the time that I write this comment. Another IP editor has deleted two essay-like paragraphs, and I agree that they should be deleted, but I'm OK with the two sentences that remain. It's true that the work cited is research in progress rather than material that has reached the stage of being in review articles, but the rest of the page also deals with early-stage research, as indeed it has to, for this subject matter. The reason an editor asked for a review article wasn't that they can't understand the primary literature. Rather, it is because Wikipedia distinguishes between primary and secondary source material, and WP:MEDRS requires secondary sourcing for information that might affect how readers seek medical treatment. But I don't think anyone is going to base clinical decisions on what those two sentences say. I think that, as long as we omit the speculative essay-like stuff, we are OK with respect to WP:SYNTH, and I think that there are enough primary studies to include, for now, two sentences without violating WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am quite happy with this also.92.23.48.171 (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm very sorry, but I'm not sure that it is good at all.

  • 1. There should be no "also" in the first sentence so I have removed it.
  • 2. The sources currently provided (only the abstracts are visible), are not "reports that brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) utilising ELF/SLF/ULF bands can be achieved". They are nothing of the sort. Can we rely on an anon ip editor to convince us that the body of these papers - all four of them - make any such claims? I'm not sure we should rely on that. And I very doubtful that any such claims are made.
  • 3. This article opens with this definition: "Brain–computer interface ... is a direct communication pathway between the brain and an external device." How can stimulation of small numbers of neurons by an external device fit this definition? From the descriptions in the abstracts given, what we have here is external excitiation of a few neurons by radio waves. No mention of brains, no mention of communication, certainly no mention of cognitive processes. What does this stimulation achieve? One assumes that it leads to synapse firing. But there is no output from "a brain", certainly not from a human mind. The technique might have some potential for the elicitaton or control of thought or other mental processes, even of human movement by an external machine using radio waves. Bur such a machine is, as yet, pure speculation. There is no consideration whatsoever of the other side of the "interface" (if such is even possible here), i.e. what the brain concerned wants to do or to achieve in the external world. All we have is the first sentence about remote sensing of neural firing. Not really very much. This is not how a "brain–computer interface" is generaly characterised, and certainly not in this article.
  • 4. I do not doubt the sincerity of the anonymous ip editor who has added this new section and who defends it with great vigour. But how can no vested interest be assured here?
  • 5. I am also pleased to see that some level of compromise has been reached. But not that it has been at the expense of the integrity of the article as a whole. And this is certainly not consensus. I think other views should be sought.

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • 1. That is fine, it was the result of previous editing.
  • 2. The abstracts do show that an interface exists. Neural firing patterns were controlled and altered by an external radio signal. That is an interface, like it or not.
  • 3. We do not have "excitation of a few neurons". The abstracts showed control of neural firing patterns of a range of neuron types using different frequencies. That is, neurons were controlled remotely by radio which is the basis of the interface. The work also shows that it is not limited to a particular type of neuron.
  • 4. Can you elaborate, what "vested interest"? Unless there is some specific claim, I think this should be ignored.
  • 5. In terms of a BCI, it is the only entry which eludes to a true two-way interface which couldn't be more in the spirit of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.107.25 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 1. I wonder would it be helpul also if "ELF/SLF/ULF" could be explained and/or wikilinked?
  • 2. It's not an interface. It's simply external control. One can "affect" neurons by means of blunt trauma to the head. That doesn't it make the hammer an interface. The technique described here may be much more elegant and precise than psychoactive drugs or electrodes, but it's not "an interface" simply because of that.
  • 3. "A range of neuron types using different frequencies" is not a brain.
  • 4. I am making no accusations. How could I. But I think you explained before that you "work in this area"? I would imagine that inclusion of a topic in a respected on-line encyclopedia might add weight if one were selilng something or (more likely) wanting a research project to be commissioned or extended?
  • 5. Yes, exactly, eludes. Nothing more.
  • 6. As I advised above, please could sign your comments with four tildes. Or better still, if you are serious about contrubuting to wikipedia, why not register as a user? You might find that other editors are less suspiciuos. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Martinevans123 you asked ""Brain–computer interface ... is a direct communication pathway between the brain and an external device." How can stimulation of small numbers of neurons by an external device fit this definition?". The answer is simple, these neurons could be located in a brain and it would still work. Neurons in a living brain can have their firing patterns controlled by an external radio signal. As such, the technology does represent "a direct communication pathway between the brain and an external device". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.107.25 (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they could be in a living brain, but they're not. Not yet. And certainly not a human brain. But it would still be control/ manipulation and not communication as I, and this article, understands it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Martinevens123, the reason they are not in human brain, is because the recording equipment would kill the patient. That's all. As for communication, neurons produce detectable radio waves. This is the reception part. Transmission is covered by the fact that the same radio waves can control the firing pattern. That is a two-way interface. This entry is about "interfaces". What you do with that interface, is a different question.
Anon-ip-with-autosignature, yes kill the patient. That's all. Hmm, a minor difficulty I think. By the way, do you know what a "tilde" character is on your keyboard? (It's used in the "wikipedia interface"). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The interface itself does not kill the patient. Attaching probes into through the brain matter to record the control of the neural firing patterns, could kill the patient. If the neurons respond to the radio waves in an experimental setup, they will respond the exact same way in situ. Tryptofish also recognises this and has a Ph.D in biochemistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.107.25 (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Gosh, does he really. And even he can manage four tildes. I'm not quite sure where this patient has suddenly come from. But his prognosis is not very good, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone stick to commenting on the content, and not on the editor. I've linked the frequency ranges. And I've changed the verb tenses, in a manner that, I hope, addresses concerns about over-interpreting the existing source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"There have been reports.. " By whom? Um, hang on, who's being attacked here, exactly? I thought signing comments, even by ip editors, was somehow expected? Your use of the tildes is quite masterly, Tryptofish. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The reports are the abstracts and that would be "by scientists". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.108.114 (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
First scientist, M.A.Persinger, says this:
"Contemporary neuroscience suggests the existence of fundamental algorithms by which all sensory transduction is translated into an intrinsic, brain-specific code. Direct stimulation of these codes within the human temporal or limbic cortices by applied electromagnetic patterns may require energy levels which are within the range of both geomagnetic activity and contemporary communication networks. A process which is coupled to the narrow band of brain temperature could allow all normal human brains to be affected by a subharmonic whose frequency range at about 10 Hz would only vary by 0.1 Hz." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
And your point is? Keep in mind that you are chatting to two scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.108.114 (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Martinevans, I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at, either, but if you are asking what the "reports" are, I think it's pretty obvious that they are the sources cited. I get the feeling that you feel that they do not support what the section now says, following my edits, but I don't know what you mean specifically. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I am arguing that the abstract above says nothing about a "Brain Computer Interface". I note your introduction of the conditional "may", which I applaud. But I'm not sure that a change of verb tense changes what this abstract says. But then, I'm not a scientist, allegedly. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The abstract may not say "BCI", but that is what the abstracts describe. A BCI is defined as "a direct communication pathway between the brain and an external device" and that is clearly what these abstracts demonstrate. There is no question on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.93.240 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Martinevans, thanks, that was a helpful clarification, and, I think, a reasonable concern to have about this material. I've gone back and re-read the abstracts of each of the four references cited for that sentence. It is true that none of them explicitly says anything about a physical interface. On the other hand, all of them do say explicitly that they consider these kinds of frequencies to be able to influence neuronal function in a controlled manner. So, the relevant Wikipedia editing policy is WP:SYNTH, and the question is whether editors are justified in going from what we can read in the visible abstracts to the conclusion that the material falls within the subject matter of this page, without substituting editor opinion for what the sources themselves say. I can see arguments either way, and I'm open to persuasion, but I'm leaning towards concluding that the answer is that the material is OK. My thinking is that the page includes non-invasive BCIs, and thus, the "communication pathway" between brain and computer need not be something solid like a wire, etc. Thus, a remote device emitting the kinds of radio frequencies discussed here (where the "pathway" would be electromagnetic waves in the air) would fall within the subject matter of this page, and we can come to that conclusion without violating SYNTH. It's just a common knowledge understanding of what the four abstracts say. The page does not require that we restrict topics to devices that have been reduced to clinical practice, so it's OK to include this as something that sources say may become a way of controlling brain functions. (My personal opinion, like some of the other editors above, is that this is a long shot to actually work clinically, but I'm not a WP:RS and neither is any other editor here.) If you think I'm wrong, I'm open to persuasion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's just clarify this a little. None of the abstracts refer to the term "BCI". We need to decide if the interpretation of this control mechanism, as an interface, is exceeding what the abstracts say? Is it indeed WP:SYNTH? My view is that we are providing an accurate summary of the abstracts. Control using an RF signal has been achieved, multiple tests have been performed and the materials are from a reliable source. Nothing has been added and the material has not been taken out of context. Next we must ask, does this constitute an interface? Well, an interface, in this context, provides a physical connection between two systems that allows them to communicate. Communication may be one-way or two-way. The abstracts show that a communication layer can be established between a transmitting source and a neuron, or cluster of neurons. This communication layer can control the firing pattern of a neuron, or cluster. Thus, an external device can control a neuron, or cluster, over this communication layer. That is an interface. I will side with Tryptofish at this point and say we do not know how this will scale into a more complex interface. That said, an interface is an interface, even if it is limited.2.100.65.254 (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, no. There is no such thing as "one way communication". There has to be a response, and that response has to mean something. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Tryptofish, thank you for a clear and balanced reply. Your patience is much appreciated. I think both the issue of remoteness and clinical practice are straw men. Or at least for me they have no significance in this debate. My points are these:

  • The approach of this research is not 'from the brain to the outside world', it's 'from the outside world into the brain'. Not to "communicate" but simply to "control".
  • Influence does not equate to communication. Even if the algorithms for the radio waves can produce regular and predictable "patterns" of neuronal firing, this is meaningless. Unless there is a network of neurons which can be influnced towards some kind of measurable function or end goal in terms of brain function, there is no "communication". Maybe we could get the neurons to output the morse code for the phrase for "I'm alive" in Russian, or maybe even the bass line of "Firestarter" by The Prodigy. But this is all meaningless, as it has no context. There is no brain here, only neurons.
  • The influence is unidirectional. It is not a brain using a communicaton channel to achieve an external goal. It's a pattern of carefully tuned radio waves forcing neurons to fire. There is nothing coming out of a brain in return, that "communicates" with the outside world, or the radio waves, in any meaningful sense.
  • Our patient dies. Oh dear, what a shame.

I'll try a very rough analogy. It's like using an army of cyclists to regulate the traffic flow in central London. It's theorised that, if we use exactly the right number of cyclists, pedalling exactly the right type of bicycle, and wearing just the right type of luminous jackets, we can get the London taxis to speed up, slow down, even stop. And we claim "we can now use bicycles to control the transport system of the UK". Except that all we have managed to do is in fact, in a large dis-used warehouse near Chiswick, to get two cab drivers to stop listening to the directions from their passengers long enough to get the cyclists to get the two taxis to drive in tandem, at exactly the same soeed, for 100 yards! We've kind of missed the whole point of the taxi's purpose it getting the passenger where he wanted to go, and forgotten about the real complexity of the whole UK transport network. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


I feel that I can answer some of your points.
  • Whether the point is to "control" or not, you still need to communications layer between an external device and that what you wish to control. It still requires an interface. Take for example a motor connected to a computer, we may wish to "control" that motor, but we still require an interface to communicate such controls.
  • By changing the neural firing patterns, you have changed brain function. The fact that there is no brain has been explained as a practical matter. It does not change the fact that the interface will function just as well in situ.
  • There does not have to be "return communication", this article is about Brain-computer interfaces. That is, an interface which can connect the brain to a computer or vice versa.
  • This is a recording issue, not an interface issue. You are well aware of this.

I can see no valid argument here Martinevans123. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.65.254 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"The interface will function just as well in situ" - why? because you say so? There is no brain here, only neurons. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The laws of physics say so. It does not matter if the neurons are in water, on the moon, in deep space, or inside the brain. If they can be controlled by an RF signal in a lab, they can be controlled by an RF signal whilst in the brain. At a physical level, there is simply no difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.65.254 (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Ahh yes, the good old laws of physics. Do they trump the laws of biology? Or the laws of human physiology? What about medico-ethical laws? And how about the laws of human rights? Answer me this - do brains exist without people to use them? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not get what you are implying. Are you trying to say that something changes, in terms of physics, when the neurons are in a brain? If so, could you explain this?78.146.87.247 (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Gosh. I trying to say that something changes in terms of ethics. I'm suggesting that human neurons belong in a human brain (that's in a condition that's called "alive"). Radical, I know, for a non-scientist. Incidentally, do you think the modified Hodgkin–Huxley (HH) model desrves it's own wikipedia article? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Its not a valid argument in terms of this research. It makes no difference where the neurons are located during the experiment. Anyway, what is your point about a modified HH model? I hope you realise that, also, does not impact the research either.78.146.87.247 (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Alas, how could I realise. I am just your typical Wikipedia reader, not a scientific expert like yourself.. but, oh yes, as you mentioned it, there are a few tiny practical details aren’t there, inside the rather small cranium – how does one select those neurons? Or is it just the one special one you’re after? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not a forum. Have you got any valid points to raise? Or can we close this issue?78.146.87.247 (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's focus on the key content points. As I see it, they are these: (1) Are the effects described in the four sources, on neurons as opposed to brain, sufficient to qualify for this page? and (2) Does the fact that there is no evidence in any of the four sources of a brain communicating back to the radio something that disqualifies the topic from this page? (There is a source, the first in the section, that says that brain signals can be detected, but nothing saying that the detecting device can be controlled by the brain.)

In particular, would we be setting a lower standard here than for the rest of the topics discussed on the page – ie, do all of the other topics covered on the page satisfy these criteria? I'm listening. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


Ok, in reference to key points.
  • 1. Such tests will always be on neurons for obvious reasons. As there is no difference between neurons in model, or in situ, I feel that this point is moot. (In fact, I find it positively stupid.)
  • 2. The article is not about "brain communication", or even "brain control". It is about "interfaces". An interface "is a direct communication pathway between the brain and an external device". That is all and the abstracts satisfy that definition.

Finally, the satisfying criteria for this page is, "is it a direct communication pathway between the brain and an external device?"

The answer is yes. 78.146.87.247 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

1. My question "do brains exist without people to use them?" was not a forum question. Neither was it rhetorical. It has direct relevance to this article and what goes in it. I await an answer. The technique described in these papers seems to be one that can produce real and quantifiable "effects" on neurons. But these "effects" have no meaning or implication outside a brain. And the application of the technique to a living brain is not only wholly unproven but wholly untested. There may be no difference between the lobster in your kitchen and millions in the sea - but just because you can boil the one on the kitchen doesn't mean you can boil all the others as well. And you've still got to find the lobster in the sea that looks and tastes exactly like the one on your plate.
2. A blow to the head from a blunt instrument might make a few neurons fire, but that doesn't make it "an interface". I'm still looking at all the other topics in the article already to see if they all meet the criterion for "brain feedback". What is your view on this Tryptofish? Maybe the topic belongs in a different article or naybe in a special section here headed e.g. "associated experimental techniques", rather than in the main body? (Apologies to any crustacea that may have been harmed in the making of the last tortuous analogy). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This is becoming a bit of a farce. The points being raised here are not valid in any scientific sense.
  • 1. At a scientific level, control of a neuron (or cluster) is achievable regardless of where they are located. It is the neuron itself responding to the RF signal. The only reason the neurons are not in situ, is because of recording methods used. The laws of physics do not change suddenly when the neurons are located elsewhere. This is absurd. If the neurons were in a brain, they too would respond to the RF signal in a controlled manner, there would just be no way to monitor it.
  • 2. This statement is outrageous to say the least. A RF signal controls the neuron firing pattern. This allows an external devices to control that firing pattern. That is an "interface". There is no requirement of "brain feedback", where is this nonsense coming from?
Oh, wait, I see the problem. THE DEFINITION ON AN INTERFACE IS BEING INTERPRETED INCORRECTLY. An interface is not a form of "communication". at least not as defined by Wikipedia. In the article Communication, it states "Feedback is critical to effective communication between parties". This may be true in the sense of "parties communicating", but in an interface, feedback is NOT required. For example, I can use an interface to communicate with a bread board circuit, but I do not need to return information to my computer. This is known as a "one-way interface".78.146.87.247 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
"Brain–computer interface ... is a direct communication pathway between the brain and an external device." Perhaps this material belongs in the "future possibilities" section at Neuroprosthetics? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
"Neural prostheses are a series of devices that can substitute a motor, sensory or cognitive modality that might have been damaged as a result of an injury or a disease." This technology cannot do this, it only "interfaces" with existing neurons.78.146.87.247 (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh well, just an idea (for the future anyway). But the "existing neurons" aren't in a brain, are they. By the way - where did these neurons actually come from? Another analogy: I'm sure the recipe for Duck à l'orange is a perfectly valid procedure to produce a successful evening meal (at least if one is a carnivore). But one doesn't expect to find it here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you would enlighten us to exactly how the physical properties of these neurons will change depending on their location? Since this has been explained numerous times, I am beginning to get the impression that you are just trolling at this point. 78.146.87.247 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Um, I wonder could you tell us if these neurons were from a human brain? But I have never disputed physical comparability. The physical properties of the ducks would be identical, wouldn't they. That's not really the point I was trying to make. The main thrust of your arguments seem to have been along the lines of "I am right because you are stupid" and "you can't be right because you're not a scientist." And now, it seems, I am "a troll", because I don't agree with you. Are you the same editor who added this material? With no wikipedia account and several different ip addresses, it's hard for me to be sure, even as a troll. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You are avoiding the question, how will the physical properties of these neurons change depending on their location? If you can answer this, perhaps your "no brain" argument will have merit. 78.146.87.247 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I do apologise. But, um, I'm `avoiding the question' because I agreed with you - I just said: "I have never disputed physical comparability". Unfortunately physical identity does not equate to functional identity. I could have a carrier bag full of healthy neurons, but it wouldn't really be a brain. would it? I could invent a new way of cutting house bricks with a sonic knife; but that wouldn't really mean that I was expert in classical architecture who could extend or enhance a unique National Monument. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Then your argument makes no logical sense given that neurons are from a brain. 78.146.87.247 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, with that kind of logic, an extracted tooth could be used to bite an apple and an amputated leg could be used to kick the winning Cup Final penalty goal at Wembley. But hang on, there's a question that I have asked of you, twice already now. Just for us illogical non-scientists (or even perhaps for the average wikipedia readers) who don't have a handy copy of "Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 34, Issue 3" - where did the two neurons come from? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Your argument is absurd and your analogies are completely out of context. The laws of physics do not change just because the something is located at a different place. Even you have admitted this is true. Where the neurons come from is also irrelevant (and no, its not squid). It makes no difference. There is no scientific validity to any of your points. They are also nothing more than pedantic and facetious. The bottom line is this, neurons can be controlled by an RF signal, that allows for a direct interface to the brain. End of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.87.247 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The story doesn't end just because you decide you want to close the book, Prof Ed Anon. Apologies if some of my analogies have seemed "out of context". I thought that's why they were analogies. I have tried all ways to make my argument clear, that two neurons, or indeed however many neurons, don't just "make a brain" and certainly not a brain that can be "interfaced with" by RF energy, in whichever direction, one-way or two-way, or in communication. I find your rather reductionist and mechanistic view of the human body's most vital organ quite alarming. But I hope that I have not descended to name-calling and accusatory insults. I'm happy to let other editors decide whether or not your "bottom line" really is the bottom. Ah, did someome say squid? Tasty! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I will indulge you for a bit. What do you think is happening when EEG is used to control, let's say, a speech synthesizer. Is the software listening to the "whole brain"??? I think you will find that the software is looking for an "identifiable patterns" and that pattern comes from a small number of clusters of neurons. The real problem here is that you do not understand the technology, all you are relying on is a pedantic notion of the English language. You really should leave it to the experts. 78.146.87.247 (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if the claims made can be tempered with reality, perhaps the experts, or at least the non-anonymous ones, could decide if the new material should be:
  • moved to Neurostimulation.
  • moved to the "Cell-culture BCIs" section.
  • be integrated in some way with the statement in BCI-based toys, which says: "In 2006 Sony patented a neural interface system allowing radio waves to affect signals in the neural cortex."Sony patent neural interface". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I see you have given up your claims. Anyway, let's look at this:
  • Neurostimulation - In its current form, it would be inappropriate for this section. This section is about restoring neural functions through specific techniques. This technology does not do that, it interfaces with existing neurons (or clusters) and controls their firing.
  • This would be inappropriate as the technology can work outside of a Cell-culture. This BCI can work in situ.
  • This is not a toy.
None of the solutions are appropriate. It is a non-invasive BCI and should remain where it is. 78.146.80.14 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like we're stuck with it where is it then, for now anyway. But I have given up none of my claims, thanks. I suggested that other editors should decide if you have the right to dictate how this article looks and what's in it. You say "This BCI can work in situ". Where is your evidence? Or is that your personal expert scientific opinion? And you have yet to tell us where the neurons, which are not from squid, come from. Or maybe that's special private information? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The laws of physics do not change depending on your location. 78.146.80.14 (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Great evidence. As we all know "They cannae be changed, Captain!!. You should write a paper.
(The laws of physics allow for someone to ride a bicycle on the moon. The bicycle is physically the same whether its on earth or on the moon. There's just the small practicalities of getting it there and, much more difficult, also getting somone there to ride it. But if we were reporting here a novel new design for a bicycle chain drive, we wouldn't say: "There are reports that the bicycle with the new chain drive can be ridden on the moon".)
Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
It is, unless you wish to rewrite them 78.146.80.14 (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr. I gather that the answer to my questions above is that we can leave the two sentences in there for now. I'm moving on. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

tl? dr? Before you move on, do you have a view? Would Looie496 or TjerdB care to comment again? Does consensus here rest on the opinions of just five editors? Thanks.
You asked (1) Are the effects described ... sufficient to qualify for this page? and (2) Does the fact that there is no evidence .. of a brain communicating ... disqualify the topic from this page?
My answers (1) Reading the whole article in detail, yes these reports could be somewhere as they are relevant to this area. But no claim about BCIs should be made, unless the authors say that themsleves. (2) I don't think they belong in a section where all the other material is about sensing brain activity, not stimulating it. The Sony patent mentioned in the Toys section sounds akin and it might be useful to describe that more fully alongside this. The first ref, Lipkova and Chechak (2005), seems very general and should be in an introductory section. To place it here gives the impression of WP:SYNTH. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Give up the ghost, will you? Again, your points make no sense.
*1. The abstract and experimental work is about a BCI.
*2. Its in a section relating to non-invasive BCI, which is exactly what it is.
You're being overly pedantic in your interpretations. Could you explain why you want it out of this section so badly, that you are will to misinterpret everything? What interest do you have that you are not disclosing? 2.100.65.115 (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I have "no undisclosed interests". My interest here is based solely on WP:MOS. I am not the "expert" scientist professing to work in this area. I am not "giving up the ghost" I am noting my conclusions. If you believe that, for all of the sources you have added, "The abstract and experimental work is about a BCI" please show us all where the term "BCI" is used. I think that is the third or fourth time I have asked for that. You have not answered my questions, you have simply returned here each time to contadict my position, restate your own and/or insult my intelligence. Wikipedia values verifiability over "truth", even your truth, I'm afraid. You may wish to indulge yourself further here, but please don't pretend that you are "indulging me". I have no more to say to you, whoever you are. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No other topic on the whole of Wikipedia has been discussed, or misrepresented as much as this one. You have Tryptofish, a PhD no less, stating he's OK with it. You have me, another scientist who works with BCI, saying he is also fine with it. Then we have you, who clearly didn't understand what an interface was, or how neurons relate to the brain. Its just been one nonsense claim after another. When that didn't work, it was a case of repeating the nonsense claims focusing on pedantic interpretation. Now you want the term "BCI" to be used, let's just ignore the fact that is what the abstracts are talking about. Its not that you cannot understand this material, it is that you do not want to. That suggests more than an interest in Wikipedia standards, in fact, it would be expected of a troll with an agenda. 2.100.65.115 (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There's far too many external links on this page. I'm not sure which to keep or which to integrate so I've moved them to this talk page for others to sort through. I've not included those that obviously should not be listed as external links. ClaretAsh 10:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If others disagree with this removal, feel free to re-add the links but please consider the advice at Wikipedia:External links. Otehrwise re-add the {{External links}} tag but with an updated date parameter. Thank you. ClaretAsh 10:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles
Lectures and videos
I agree entirely. I, too, was concerned that it had become a link farm, and I thank you for taking care of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. My first thought when looking through these links was that they look like an editor's list of resources, as if some editor has located and collated their data in preparation for writing an article. Not at all like a list of "You might also like to read..." links for the reader. ClaretAsh 10:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Light Reactive Imaging?

The short paragraph concerning itself with "Light Reactive Imaging" under the "Partially Invasive BCIs" section doesn't seem to have any credentials. The only references to this idea I can find is a short reference in the book "Cyberpower and national security" (Franklin D. Kramer, Stuart H. Starr, Larry K. Wentz, 2009). The idea seems to come from a series of papers concerning themselves with voltage-sensitive dyes that can be used as optical sensors, which is an idea that is neither bound to the realm of theory not bound to brain-computer interfaces in themselves. It's a concept that fundamentally relies on the dye to be present in homogenous distribution around the cells, which sounds very much like an invasive process.

All in all, the paragraph asserts the existence of a whole theory of operation and a branch of research I for one can find no references to. Since I'm not knowledgeable enough to assess the matter, I've added a Fact-tag to it. Could someone more knowledgeable look this over, please? I'm still hoping to just have overlooked something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.255.184 (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not an expert either but I believe the statements are legitimate. It is possible to detect voltage-dependent changes in membrane optical properties without using dyes, although the signal-to-noise ratio is very poor -- I once had a colleague who did her Ph.D. using that technique in rodents. Looie496 (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail Article - Effects of low frequency radio

IP has been blocked for edit-warring, and should take the time out as an opportunity to read Wikipedia policy

ok, so explain yourselves. What is wrong with this statement. "In reference to electromagnetic weapons, "previous research has shown that low-frequency waves or beams can affect brain cells, alter psychological states and make it possible to transmit suggestions and commands directly into someone’s thought processes." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2123415/Putin-targets-foes-zombie-gun-attack-victims-central-nervous-system.html 92.23.46.108 (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source: it prints a lot of nonsense. There is no reputable scientific evidence for electromagnetic transmissions being able to alter psychological states or transmit suggestions or commands into the brain. We don't even understand how suggestions and commands are represented inside the brain. It is conceivable that electromagnetic signals could be used to cause brain activity to shut off, or to provoke a seizure -- but even for that no technology currently exists, as far as I know. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The daily mail is the UK's second largest daily news paper. It is referenced in thousands of articles throughout Wikipedia. Your opinion is irrelevant. As a mainstream source reporting current news, Wikipedia states that such reporting "is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". As for your opinion on what low frequency radio can or cannot achieve, no one is interested. The bottom line is that this information is from a verifiable and reliable source. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
It's utterly shameful rubbish. But I hardly think that a gun can be construed to be "a computer"? Perhaps there is an article on miltary weaponry on wikipedia where you might try add such speculative nonsense. But I think you will find a similar reaction. There are many people who are interested in what low frequency radio can or cannot achieve, and especially in the opinions of experts on such matters. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You didn't even read the article did you? It does NOT say that the gun is the device. It notes that research was done using low frequency radio, which interfaces with the brain, to introduce speech or effect states. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I did read it. I had to read it twice, in fact, as I couldn't believe even the Daily Mail could print such wild fantasy as if it were fact. So, where is the research upon which this tabloid newspaper has based it's claim? I didn't see it in the list of references. Or do we just take Christopher Leake's and Will Stewart's word for it? I wonder what qualifes them to offer such outrageous opinions? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yup. The Daily Mail has a well-deserved reputation for printing any old bollocks that will increase sales. In any case, this supposed 'weapon' has nothing to do with an article on 'brain-computer interface'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, you did not understand it since you made a reference to the gun. That is different technology. I don't think your comments have relevance. It is not for you to challenge the source of a reputable news organisation. The only requirement is that the information presented be verifiable (WP:VERIFY) and reliable (WP:RELIABLE). Unless you can present evidence that removes the Daily Mail from these categories, this discussion will not prevent inclusion. Andy, you need a BCI before you can have a weapon. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is not a reputable source when it comes to issues concerning 'brain-computer interface' - actually, there are many that consider it not to be a reputable source for anything other than the day of the week. Rubbish like this isn't going into the article, end of story... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a violation of Wikipedia's policies. As quoted earlier Wikipedia's position on news articles is that they are "generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" (WP:RELIABLE). It is not your place to cherry pick. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Rubbish: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis". WP:NEWSORG Find the same material in a reputable source (rather than a gossip-riddled tabloid) and maybe it deserves mention in Wikipedia - but not in this article. We don't throw any old junk into any old article just because a down-market tabloid has printed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Gosh did someone mention a BCI? Where's the evidence for that exactly? Not in this article, I'd suggest. And you've got to have a horse before a cart. But the horse doesn't actually build the cart for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You have presented no evidence that the claim is incorrect. In fact, all I see is the opinion of three editors who came to the talk with minds set on a particular conclusion. As such, your opinions are biased and your input irrelevant. None of you are in a position to judge the reliability of the article. Does anyone have any evidence to add? Martinevans123, it seems like you have the same issue as was pointed out before on this page by another user, you have no clue as to what a BCI is. In order to send information to the brain, you must first interface with it. That is a truism. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hahaha. I think the onus may just be on you and the Daily Mail to provide any evidence here? After all, who knows, maybe Elvis really is up there on the moon with Adolf. Ah yes, the same issue - I'm just a "troll with an agenda". That must prove you right, anon ip editor. "Lol". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Anon IP, you appear to have no clue what Wikipedia policy is in regard to wild claims sourced solely to down-market tabloids. As for your comments on BCI, see WP:OR: the source cited says nothing whatsoever regarding any BCI, and your attempt to make the connection is nothing more than speculation. If you really want to settle this for sure, raise it at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - though you will get exactly the same response as you have got here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
No, you made the claim that the source is unreliable. You must present evidence as to why that claim is unreliable. Keep in mind that you are attacking the integrity of a commercial organisation in a public forum. Andy, you seem not to understand that to alter the neural coding scheme of the brain fundamentally requires a computer, it cannot be done without one. I fail to see how editors that do not understand the technology in any way, can determine the reliability of a source.92.23.46.108 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Utter bollocks. Take it to WP:RSN or go away and read WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Or even better, read a newspaper, as opposed to that ridiculous rag (by the way, are you quite sure this isn't the Daily Mail's idea of an April Fool's joke?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
That is up to you, you are the one claiming it is not a reliable source. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is and it is referenced tens of thousands of times throughout. Your opinion does not matter, you would need a large consensus. In terms of an April fool's joke, it was published before April 1st. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the anon IP clearly doesn't have a clue how Wikipedia works, and refuses to take this to WP:RSN, I think the most sensible option is to ignore this thread entirely - it looks more like trolling than a serious attempt to discuss improvements to the article, which is what this talk page is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You have made a claim that the article is unreliable. You have been asked to support this claim. You have not been able to do so. Not only this, but you have demonstrated a serious lack of knowledge in regards to the topic being discussed (i.e. not knowing how the technology functions). I do not see any reason to uphold your claim. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Take it to WP:RSN... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
That section is for Editors...(i.e. you). 92.23.46.108 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
And you - you are editing Wikipedia too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
As stated, "This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated WikiProject". WP:RSN is not official policy and only concerns itself with Verifiability. This source is verifiable. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
"Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, in context, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. For general or hypothetical questions concerning a source, please use the talk page": WP:RSN. Either raise the matter there, or drop it. Nobody is going to allow dubious material like you are proposing to be added to the article without first getting agreement that the source can be seen as reliable for the statement made. This sort of question is precisely what the reliable sources noticeboard is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't need to. You have made the claim that it is unreliable, that means nothing and does not require that the quote be submitted to that process. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Paralysed woman's thoughts control robotic arm

I think this should be added, but am not sure of the best place: [6]. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I just added notes on both research groups mentioned in the BBC news article to the Human BCI / Movement section. (Be bold: if you think it should be added, add it - with civility.) p.r.newman (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks (- with civility). :) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"Patents on silent communication devices" As a subsection

This section really needs to be included in the article because it helps illuminate the topic in greater detail, for which evidence is very scarce. This is probably given the highly sensitive nature of such technology and it's potential for abuse by individuals which might possess such technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedind (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS? - your patent link is considered a primary source. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's valid because it's not being cited for the purpose of some other claim. It's only being cited to show patents on the subject do exist. This helps give people a more in-depth view of what scientists are attempting to do with this technology. Furthermore, this section is viable according to Wikipedia's specific rules on citing patents: "They are reliable for simple, descriptive statements about their existence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_patents_reliable_sources.3F
It was removed today because its relevance was in question. Again, I think given the importance of the topic and its huge implications for society as a technology, that it must be included given the small amount of declassified information on the subject.
--Sedind (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's an arbitrary list of tangentially related patents, and the wording of the section necessarily utilized weasel words to force a tie-in of the patents to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
That's an absurd claim with no basis in fact. It's directly related to the topic, if you'd actually read the sources. What weasel words are you referring to? If you find some, then feel free to edit it. But there is no reason to delete this entire section. --Sedind (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
No, it's a factual statement. It's an arbitrary list of tangentially related patents. This article is not specifically about those patents, they are factually secondary topics. The question then becomes what reliable source links them to the topic, the answer is none. They are linked solely by being arbitrarily listed and supporting themselves. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Martinevans123 and Barek. The way I see it, a patent only shows that there is someone somewhere who has made a claim, and the patent office has determined that the claim does not seem to be already on file. If a news source decides to publish a report about how a particular patent is important for some reason, then that's an independent reliable source (as opposed to Wikipedia editor opinion) that the subject is noteworthy for our purposes. Just think what our page on Cooking would look like if it included every recipe that "exists". The fact that something exists is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is encyclopedic. I see that Sedind has cherry-picked a sentence from WP:PATENTS: "They are reliable for simple, descriptive statements about their existence." That's their "existence", not their importance. The context is better represented by quoting: "Thus both issued patents and patent applications have extremely limited use as sources on Wikipedia... Noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery, especially for small businesses. Avoid giving too much emphasis to the existence or content of a patent or patent application." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A source has been taken down, and its paragraph is now sourceless

In reference to this paragraph: >In 2008 research developed in the Advanced Telecommunications Research (ATR) Computational Neuroscience Laboratories in Kyoto, Japan, allowed the scientists to reconstruct images directly from the brain and display them on a computer. The article announcing these achievements was the cover story of the journal Neuron of 10 December 2008.[59] While the early results are limited to black and white images of 10x10 squares (pixels), according to the researchers further development of the technology may make it possible to achieve color images, and even view or record dreams.[60]

I removed [61] which was the original Japanese source which has been taken down, here: http://www.chunichi.co.jp/article/national/news/CK2008121102000053.html

Unfortunately, [60] (http://pinktentacle.com/2008/12/scientists-extract-images-directly-from-brain/) was only a blog post which cited the first source. So now there are no sources. There is very related research here: http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/ ...but, I don't believe it's the same research. [59] (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627308009586) is still relevant, but doesn't support all of the given sentence. I'm rewriting it to take out the now-sourceless information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.234.19 (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

2014 World Cup news

Carl Zimmer says, in National Geographic's newly published A geography of the mind, that: ".. a paraplegic wearing a brain–machine interface exoskeleton is set to deliver the opening kick at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Its inventor, Duke University’s Miguel Nicolelis, believes that ‘eventually brain implants will become as common as heart implants’.[7] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing source

The following reference: {{cite web| last = Baum| first = Michele| title = Monkey Uses Brain Power to Feed Itself With Robotic Arm| publisher = Pitt Chronicle| date = 6 September 2008| url = http://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/?p=1478| accessdate = 2009-07-06}} is out of date and/or no longer exists.92.30.5.43 (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Military apps

There's a whole world of information out there, the original synthetic telepathy article from 2010 for example broke out in an edit war and was subsequently deleted. This information is not on Wikipedia today, because idiot editors edit it out and delete it. See that archive Wiki here: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/05/451768.html

Now, we're up against this problem again. I added the below content, it was deleted immediately by biased ignorant editors. Instead, it should be improved upon, and included into the article. 2602:306:CE65:9470:9927:F5E:CF45:6DE8 (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants to hear Dr. Robert Duncan's interviews, they are here in mp3 format: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/ro/robert_duncan_jesse_ventura_interview.mp3 http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/coast_to_coast_drduncan/full/duncan_Dec_05_2006_full.mp3 2602:306:CE65:9470:9927:F5E:CF45:6DE8 (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The first mind reading, mind altering military radar was invented and patented under US3,951,134 in 1974 by Department of Defense contractor Robert Malech working for Dorne & Margolin Inc.[2],who designed electronic warfare and radar systems for the DOD. Dorne & Margolin Inc. has been through a series of acquisitions first by EDO Corporation in 1992, who was picked up by ITT Corporation in 2007, who spun off the assets into Exelis Inc. in 2011. The technology allows remote creation of EEG maps in real time from very far away distances, which can be decoded into a targets thoughts, memories, feelings, dreams, visual and auditory data, vital signs, and mental processes. By beaming a radar signal into a persons brain programmed with data from generated EEG maps and making it bio-coherent, the waves heterodyne into the targets brain allowing brainwaves to be altered from afar. Agents of the DOD use this technique to EEG clone brainwaves of surveillance suspects into their own brains for agent interpretation, or alternatively can pass the data through a neural decoder for computer interpretation and possible storage in computer data formats in surveillance and intelligence agency databases. Agents of the DOD can also copy their own EEG map into a suspects brain for interrogation and torture, the target will feel and sense the broadcasted thoughts, sounds, images and brainwaves of the agent, agents, or computer generated data, such as a virtual dream world rendered much like a computer game or synthetized voice, imagery, and thought. Dr. Robert Duncan, B.A., M.S., M.B.A., Ph.D., a DOD, CIA, US DOJ, and NASA whistleblower[3] has disclosed this in his three books, The Matrix Deciphered[4], Project: Soul Catcher: Secrets of Cyber and Cybernetic Warfare Revealed[5], and How to Tame a Demon: A short practical guide to organized intimidation stalking, electronic torture, and mind control[6]. The Matrix Deciphered states that the method was retro-fitted into all DOD radar and satellites by 1976. Dr. Robert Duncan has been on Coast to Coast AM appearing on the show Energy Weapons & Testing December 5th, 2006[7], and Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura episode Brain Invaders December 17th, 2012[8] discussing the weapon being used to torture innocent civilians. A second patent, US6,011,991 was filed December 7, 1998 covering more of the infrastructure and other methods of transmission and interception[9]. The mind certainly has no firewall to guard from interception or attack[10]. The technique is related to interferometry according to Dr. Robert Duncan.

References

  1. ^ a b c Drummond, Katie (2009-05-14). "Pentagon Preps Soldier Telepathy Push". Wired Magazine. Retrieved 2009-05-06.
  2. ^ Malech, Robert (August 5 1974). "Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves". US Patent and Trademark Office. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Duncan, Robert (December 5 2006). "Dr. Robert Duncan's Biography". Coast to Coast AM. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Duncan, Robert (January 2006). "The Matrix Deciphered" (PDF). Robert Duncan.
  5. ^ Duncan, Robert (September 27 2010). Project: Soul Catacher: Secrets of Cyber and Cybernetic Warfare Revealed. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. p. 332. ISBN 1452804087. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Duncan, Robert (January 1 2014). How to Tame a Demon: A short practical guide to organized intimidation stalking, electronic torture, and mind control. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. p. 110. ISBN 1492912662. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ Duncan, Robert (12/05/2006). "Energy Weapons & Testing". Coast to Coast AM. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ Duncan, Robert (December 17 2012). "Brain Invaders Duncan Interview". TruTV. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ Mardirossian, Aris (December 7 1998). "Communication system and method including brain wave analysis and/or use of brain activity". US Patent and Trademark Office. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ Thomas, Timothy (Spring 1998). "The Mind Has No Firewall". US Army.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2014‎ 2602:306:ce65:9470:9927:f5e:cf45:6de8 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 25 November (UTC)

I think it's complete and utter rubbish. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish? As in not truth, not fact? Because if that's the case, you're disqualified. 2602:306:CE65:9470:9927:F5E:CF45:6DE8 (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brain–computer_interface/Archive_2&oldid=725564861"