Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deep image reconstruction from human brain activity (2017)

biorxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: Deep image reconstruction from human brain activity (2017)

#51

Post by rasz »

miguelrochefort wrote: post #37
lsh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is also evidence this ability to conjure imagery in our minds simply does not exist for some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia which leads me to wonder if the capability exists on a spectrum and is stronger or weaker in some. A stronger capability might correlate to a stronger 'signal' ...?

Do people actually see images of things in their head? I can close my eyes and think of something, but I won't perceive anything more than a linear description of it. At best, I can use these visual descriptions to draw an outline in my head, but it instantly fades out if I don't continuously re-draw it. Kind of like this: https://i.imgur.com/0zuPIPV.gifv

>Do people actually see images of things in their head?

Yes, and Forbidden Planet "plastic educator" comes to mind :)

Re: Deep image reconstruction from human brain activity (2017)

#52

Post by sidmani »

miguelrochefort wrote: post #44
ekianjo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no issue conjuring clear images when closing eyes. I guess it depends how your brain is wired and this is probably why we have ways to refer people who are good at drawing, painting, etc. They probably have a mix of clear visualization and very good hand/finger coordination.

- Can you imagine the color of the floor, walls and ceiling at work? - Can you imagine the color of the eyes and hairs of your coworkers? - Can you imagine the home screen of your phone and see how many application icons can fit in a row and column? - Can you imagine Google's logo and see the color of each letter? - Can you imagine your car manufacturer's logo and draw it?

1) I can do that easily, and even can imagine the paint texture for the walls.

2) Hair for all of them, but I can only picture the eyes of the people who had unusual colors (blue, gray, green). Maybe I never paid much attention if they had normal brown eyes.

3) Row yes, but I wasn't sure about the column (4 or 5).

4) Yes.

5) easiest task on the list.

Re: Deep image reconstruction from human brain activity (2017)

#53

Post by Henk0 »

ghkbrew wrote: post #43
miguelrochefort wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people actually see images of things in their head? I can close my eyes and think of something, but I won't perceive anything more than a linear description of it. At best, I can use these visual descriptions to draw an outline in my head, but it instantly fades out if I don't continuously re-draw it. Kind of like this: https://i.imgur.com/0zuPIPV.gifv

Supposedly, most people do. There was an article on hn about "aphantasia" (the lack of mental imagery) not to long ago, but I can't seem to find it now. Google turns up quite a few hits though. I can't help but be a little sceptical of the concept though. I believe there's probably a spectrum but maybe not as wide is claimed. Based on the comment sections of basically any article on the subect, I wonder if there isn'…

Aphantasia is definitely real. My inner visual world has always consisted of the view of the inside of my eyelids. Thinking for me is an almost purely verbal process, in an inner voice that I don’t percieve as sound in any way. I can navigate in my mind, and describe accurately places I’ve been, but there’s never an image, only a kind of spatial perception, combined with knowledge (of materials, colors etc.)

I thought this was how everyone’s mind worked, until I met my ex, who is on the opposite end of the scale. She described her inner world as sometimes more vivid and detailed than the real world. I thought she was almost unique in this, until I started asking other people and realised that most people see images in their mind, of varying detail and vividness. Some can easily project onto their visual input and, for example, put a moustache or wings on someone. I’ve also come to learn that many people hear their own voice when they think (and many, non-schizophrenic, people hear other voices too), and can also imagine smells and tastes.

My episodic memory is affected by my aphantasia, as well as my people recognition skills. I can find it hard to recognise someone if they’ve changed their hair, grown a beard or changed their appearance in some other way.

I do dream though, vivid dreams, and am quite good at recalling them. But again the memory of the dreams, like other memories, is not visual.

I’m quite fascinated with this subject, and have some thoughts of picking up where I left off on my psychology master to be able to study it more. It’d be interesting to see if there are correlates in big-5 personality, iq, mental health etc.)

Re: Deep image reconstruction from human brain activity (2017)

#54

Post by NegativeLatency »

PinkMilkshake wrote: post #38
gamegoblin wrote: post #15

Acknowledging that I know nothing about psychology or neuroscience... It's interesting that they were not able to extract good images from the test when they just asked the subjects to imagine the pictures. I speculate that is because the vast majority of people are able to recognize images of things, but not produce those images. For a simple example, see this article about people trying to draw a bicycle. Before cl…

> It's interesting that they were not able to extract good images from the test when they just asked the subjects to imagine the pictures. I speculate that is because the vast majority of people are able to recognize images of things, but not produce those images. It seems reasonable to me. To use a computer as an analogy, the set of signals produced by a webcam recording a video to a hard drive are not going to be t…

Or another way: the data in a frame buffer is not the same as the data in a png file.

Re: Deep image reconstruction from human brain activity (2017)

#55

Post by dcw303 »

lsh wrote: post #23
gamegoblin wrote: post #15

Acknowledging that I know nothing about psychology or neuroscience... It's interesting that they were not able to extract good images from the test when they just asked the subjects to imagine the pictures. I speculate that is because the vast majority of people are able to recognize images of things, but not produce those images. For a simple example, see this article about people trying to draw a bicycle. Before cl…

there is also evidence this ability to conjure imagery in our minds simply does not exist for some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia which leads me to wonder if the capability exists on a spectrum and is stronger or weaker in some. A stronger capability might correlate to a stronger 'signal' ...?

I am highly skeptical of Aphantasia, as it's impossible to evaluate what someone else believes they see. I think it's much more likely that Aphantasia is people (like me) who make sharp distinctions between what they can imagine (rotating colors on shapes etc etc) and what they see when looking at something for real - e.g - the detail of a loved one's face.

I challenge anyone who believes they have a highly developed mind's eye to draw such a face purely from memory.

Re: Deep image reconstruction from human brain activity (2017)

#57

Post by dwaltrip »

miguelrochefort wrote: post #37
lsh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is also evidence this ability to conjure imagery in our minds simply does not exist for some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia which leads me to wonder if the capability exists on a spectrum and is stronger or weaker in some. A stronger capability might correlate to a stronger 'signal' ...?

Do people actually see images of things in their head? I can close my eyes and think of something, but I won't perceive anything more than a linear description of it. At best, I can use these visual descriptions to draw an outline in my head, but it instantly fades out if I don't continuously re-draw it. Kind of like this: https://i.imgur.com/0zuPIPV.gifv

Yep, I can visualize images of some things, especially things I am familiar with or that left an impression on me (incomplete and with inaccuracies, I'm sure). I think I am also fairly visual/spatial in my thought processes.

Re: Deep image reconstruction from human brain activity (2017)

#58

Post by docbrown »

gamegoblin wrote: post #15

Acknowledging that I know nothing about psychology or neuroscience... It's interesting that they were not able to extract good images from the test when they just asked the subjects to imagine the pictures. I speculate that is because the vast majority of people are able to recognize images of things, but not produce those images. For a simple example, see this article about people trying to draw a bicycle. Before cl…

Basing this on my rough memory of abnormal and developmental psych, the article and example you’re presenting is a type of Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rey%E2%80%93Osterrieth_complex...].

Some people may be able to produce a bicycle in more details than others but that depends on how developed and healthy their brain is to use their executive functions. Without knowing all of the subjects medical history—early dementia, strokes, all the good stuff- and current health, it’d come as no surprise that even consciously we cannot produce true representations of what we saw.

Police sketches from eye witnesses may be a good thing to look at when thinking of producing images from memory. Some people have better brain health and are able to utilize many different high and low-level functions to produce more accurate descriptions. Others not so much.

Re: Deep image reconstruction from human brain activity (2017)

#59

Post by zadler »

docbrown wrote: post #58
gamegoblin wrote: post #15

Acknowledging that I know nothing about psychology or neuroscience... It's interesting that they were not able to extract good images from the test when they just asked the subjects to imagine the pictures. I speculate that is because the vast majority of people are able to recognize images of things, but not produce those images. For a simple example, see this article about people trying to draw a bicycle. Before cl…

Basing this on my rough memory of abnormal and developmental psych, the article and example you’re presenting is a type of Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rey%E2%80%93Osterrieth_complex... ]. Some people may be able to produce a bicycle in more details than others but that depends on how developed and healthy their brain is to use their executive functions . Without knowing all of the su…

How does one improve brain health?

Re: Deep image reconstruction from human brain activity (2017)

#60

Post by trashtester »

lucidrains wrote: post #3

When we build neural networks to decode our own neural networks...

We already build neural networks to predict how our own neural networks react to input (marketing, ie facebook).

The obvious next step is to combine that with the findings in the article.

Ie: Create a VR (or AR) headset that can both present an audio-visual experience to the user, WHILE having enough sensors to accurately measure the users brain state (and other bodily states, such as heart rate, blood pressure, etc).

That will place a game developer in a position to predict what events a game can create that would create the greatest possible engagement in a given gamer. They can time rewards, challenges, esthetical or sexual stimuli in the way that generates the greatest possible control of the player's future behaviour.

In the hands of the greatest data scientists, this will allow them to create a hithertdo unprecedented level of addiction, which can then be monetetized through subscriptions, micro transactions, embedded adverticements or just by selling the data.

In the hands of governments, this can be used to pacify any population, drive behaviour in desired directions, or create support (even demand) for given policies.

In the hands of parents, it can greatly help them teach their children whatever they want to teach them. (Be it morality, religion, self-discipline, or whatever)

In the hands of a great psychologist, it would be able to cure most mental disorders less severe than outright psychosis.

How will we face this? Will anyone outside the elite be able to prevent this being used against them?

Post reply on HN