11–20 of 59 posts
Interesting but I think Heart is more ok. Brain? Imagine you put a eeg and ecg in an alphago neural network and looked at the heat map. Any use? That is not even close to the 100 billion plus Neuton we have. Wonder. But the graphic especially the heart is interesting.
The consumer grade EEG's you would use for this, like Open BCI, place rudimentary sensors on the scalp. There just isn't enough information from these types of sensors to give you a real look at what signals are occurring in the brain. This is a fundamentally flawed premise and is nothing more than a toy. Real brain research must be done with FMRIs or much more accurate EEG's than consumers have access to, and instit…
Or neural recordings with electrodes. Better spatial resolution than EEG and fMRI and way better time resolution than fMRI.
"Unity takes advantage of the computational power of the graphical processing unit (GPU) thus greatly improving processing speed for real-time analytics and data visualisation."
And so does any other 3d application in the last 40 years. It's why we have GPUs. Unity does nothing special, and in fact doesn't even give you access to the full power of the GPU (like CUDA does).
"Streaming data from local files, the cloud or connected headsets improves memory usage and computational performance."
Streaming data from the internet improves performance? That makes no sense.
The consumer grade EEG's you would use for this, like Open BCI, place rudimentary sensors on the scalp. There just isn't enough information from these types of sensors to give you a real look at what signals are occurring in the brain. This is a fundamentally flawed premise and is nothing more than a toy. Real brain research must be done with FMRIs or much more accurate EEG's than consumers have access to, and instit…
The video looks really cool, even if it just shows how fast the bloodflow in the brain moves about. I didn't realise it was that quick before, so that was interesting. But their technology paragraph makes no sense: "Unity takes advantage of the computational power of the graphical processing unit (GPU) thus greatly improving processing speed for real-time analytics and data visualisation." And so does any other 3d ap…
The streaming part improves performance over loading the whole data in advance. I think that's what they mean.
The consumer grade EEG's you would use for this, like Open BCI, place rudimentary sensors on the scalp. There just isn't enough information from these types of sensors to give you a real look at what signals are occurring in the brain. This is a fundamentally flawed premise and is nothing more than a toy. Real brain research must be done with FMRIs or much more accurate EEG's than consumers have access to, and instit…
What is the most advanced open source solution to the brain computer interface issue? Afaik they had gotten pretty good at decoding even the low sensor density data into actionable input, but all solutions suffer from input/compute lag. So that said, FMRI's won't work for realtime will it due to how long scans take? So EEG's seem to be the only choice. Perhaps to make up for accuracy you have to increase sensor densi…
Long story short, if you want a real time interface that also has high spatial resolution, you need to get invasive (and increase the number of electrodes by a lot)
The consumer grade EEG's you would use for this, like Open BCI, place rudimentary sensors on the scalp. There just isn't enough information from these types of sensors to give you a real look at what signals are occurring in the brain. This is a fundamentally flawed premise and is nothing more than a toy. Real brain research must be done with FMRIs or much more accurate EEG's than consumers have access to, and instit…
FMRIs or much more accurate EEG's Or neural recordings with electrodes. Better spatial resolution than EEG and fMRI and way better time resolution than fMRI.
The consumer grade EEG's you would use for this, like Open BCI, place rudimentary sensors on the scalp. There just isn't enough information from these types of sensors to give you a real look at what signals are occurring in the brain. This is a fundamentally flawed premise and is nothing more than a toy. Real brain research must be done with FMRIs or much more accurate EEG's than consumers have access to, and instit…
I had multiple MR and CT scans, some EEG - from all these only EEG is kinda "realtimish", isn't it? Do we have any technology in these days that can _map_ surface electrical changes to brain internals (depth data) or anything that can work in true 3d?
There isn't any existing tech to take surface data and "map" it to internal states because there isn't a simple relationship between on and the other. For real-time recording of activity deeper in the brain than a few centimetres you need to implant electrodes during surgery, which is obviously only something that happens in humans when that person needs brain surgery already.
There's some interesting stuff being done around decision-making with implanted electrodes in monkeys, but that's understandably not to everyone's taste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had multiple MR and CT scans, some EEG - from all these only EEG is kinda "realtimish", isn't it? Do we have any technology in these days that can _map_ surface electrical changes to brain internals (depth data) or anything that can work in true 3d?
Yep, only EEG gives you that kind of information. fMRI takes a lot of post-processing with complex statistics to produce any kind of useful information. I worked on a study that used fMRI to study the involvement of early visual areas in the cortex during reading tasks, and when processing long runs we'd get on with other stuff while the data was being processed. There isn't any existing tech to take surface data and…
So does EEG. The reason EEG is closer to real-time than fMRI is because of the sampling rate. With fMRI, .9 Hz is considered quite good. For EEG, 2000 Hz is considered standard.