• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

FierceBiotech- Cyberkinetics as one of Top 15


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 28 July 2004 - 10:34 PM


If a monkey can do it without knowing what or why its doing it.. just think what a human might do..


Cyberkinetics
Based: Foxborough, MA
Founded: 2000
http://www.cyberkineticsinc.com


Why It's Fierce: Talk about cutting-edge technology. Scientists at Brown University helped develop early-stage bionics in the form of implantable electronic devices. Now Cyberkinetics is taking the technology several steps further. It's been green-lighted for a clinical trial to implant its BrainGate technology into five severely disabled patients to determine if they can use the technology to send simple computer commands through channeled thought. It may sound like Fantastic Voyage, but the hardheaded scientists behind this venture garnered $9.3 million in first round funding led by Oxford Bioscience Partners. A 2002 merger with Bionic Technologies added to a tech team armed with intellectual property rights gained from Brown, MIT, and others. They say they're three to five years away from putting a product on the market, and there are a lot of disabled people in the world cheering them on. Highly speculative, but fascinating.

What to look for: Initial study results are due out before the end of the year.

#2

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 29 July 2004 - 08:48 AM

What about the risks associated with implanting such devices into the human brain, not in general but this one specifically? Are they sufficiently reduced so as to be relatively safe for the wider population (or wider disabled population at this point) to use. Not referring to the actual risk from the device, but possible damage incurred implanting the device.

I'm particularly interested in the sophistication of their interface between the human brain and a computer. The computational work needed to interpret the signals from the brain is offset to a remote computer rather than put on a chip, but at this point is the interface so crude that it is a bottleneck for communication at an acceptable rate.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#3 ocsrazor

  • Guest OcsRazor
  • 461 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 30 July 2004 - 12:00 AM

Cosmos,

Yes, the risks of implantation are minimal, less invasive than for almost any other type of neurosurgery. They are using microwire electrodes (about the thickness of a hair) pushed in very slowly. A small hole is drilled in the skull and is filled with a device that sits on top of the brain's membrane and pushes the wires in, the whole thing is capped with medical grade silicone.

They are simply doing principal components analysis with Kalman filtering to make a statistical guess at what the motor cortex is sending out at any one instant. The filters have to be trained for every individual. Crude but effective and the more wires you have, the better the prediction.

Best,
Peter

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 30 July 2004 - 02:23 AM

Cosmos,

Yes, the risks of implantation are minimal, less invasive than for almost any other type of neurosurgery. They are using microwire electrodes (about the thickness of a hair) pushed in very slowly. A small hole is drilled in the skull and is filled with a device that sits on top of the brain's membrane and pushes the wires in, the whole thing is capped with medical grade silicone.

They are simply doing principal components analysis with Kalman filtering to make a statistical guess at what the motor cortex is sending out at any one instant. The filters have to be trained for every individual. Crude but effective and the more wires you have, the better the prediction.

Best,
Peter


Yes that would be crude, but I can understand how perfection isn't necessary in their case. If the computer needs to understand the general signal for a movement of a certain appendage or something of the sort, a precise signal may not be needed. At the same time though, this route probably won't suffice for greater communication, or precise relaying of messages both ways (it seems like as of yet, this is limited to one-way communication).

This is probably similar to the monkey experiment where he was able to control a robotic hand with his brain. The same technique used to establish the one way connection.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users