12 replies to this topic

[lightowl]

I like the idea of accelerating Brain-Machine interface (BMI) technology by using competitions. There seem to be a great potential.

It makes me consider another option. It is obvious, and has been for some time, that what has been driving the acceleration of computer power for along time is the growing demands of the video gamers. It is largely because of the gaming industry that more powerful and accurate computer technology has been developed. Spanning from Input devices such as Force feedback wheels, Flight-sticks, Optical and now Laser mice to Larger and faster screens, and onto the obligatory CPUs, GPUs and RAM blocks.

I think this trend, that gamers always want better technology for their games, could be used to advance BMI technology too. If some unique games could be developed that was controlled by BMI devices, the demand for innovation could be kick-started. Those games would of course have to be of multiplayer style so the competition element would shine through. The problem with such emerging technology is that it wont catch on before the games are fun enough, so the technology has to move along a bit further than it is today.

The good thing about getting gamers to use this technology is that they have a will to learn new things. When a new game is released, the learning curve is quite steep in many cases, but that does not seem to deter gamers. I think that this willingness to try new things could be a powerful tool if utilized effectively.

Maybe games could be a part of the evaluation for a winner of your BMI prize. Players could get different devices to play with, and the winner of the game would be those with the better device - or something similar.

I think that it would be easiest to make such a prize/competition with non-invasive devices, but the potential power of invasive devices could be demonstrated by putting the two systems up head to head ( literally ) in direct competition.

[Bruce Klein]

This looks to be a worthwhile concept. Any plans on how to proceed to make a reality?

[kraemahz]

While I don't disagree with you that brain-computer interfacing is important and a prize of sufficent value might speed up the research, the field we're talking about is already very well funded. I know there are even people working on it here at the UW, as well as stuff like surgical ly implanted robotics. Unlike some more contraversial fields of fiddling with humans, no one seems to have as yet made a big deal out of this particular method of playing God, there's no shortage of people who are interested in its capabilities either. What I'm saying is that the kind of prize you're talking about would have to 1) Be of MASSIVE value 2) Garner the respect and support of billion-dollar businesses willing to donate 3) Be well orchastrated and maintained. The prize you're talking about would be no easy task, we're talking X-Prize proportions here to be necessary for it to REALLY have an effect. If you're willing to put that kind of dedication into a prize, more power to you, but right now I feel the area of research is doing sufficiently well and there are probably other things that more urgently need attention.

[kraemahz]

1) I disagree, the intention is not to fund the research, just to give incentive for those researchers to achieve the goals outlined in such a prize. The goals would be a natural extension of expected (eventual) progress in that field.
2) This is not absolutely necessary, but it would help.

I probably would have done better to include those two on the same logic step, as obviously the first makes the second more necessary. I also appologise for not well-defining my meaning of massive. By X-Prize proportions I means something of high enough significant value to make it noticeable to businesses and enterprising engineers. While the purpose of a prize is to provide an extra competative edge, such an edge is proportional to the amount of the prize and the amount that such research costs. The X-Prize was 11 million dollars and the winners spent more than the actual prize to reach it. The purpose of a prize is, obviously, not to fund that research but instead to offset the tremendous costs of performing it so that to the victors the prestige they recieve from winning is enough for them to ignore the out-of-pocket expense they have to put upfront. So, to me, the costs of the research into this kind of project is "massive," and for a prize to be truly effective in the area it would have to some degree off-set those costs.

Really, the reason for a prize is to attract private firms to spend their R&D money for the prestige they would gain winning the prize. Academia is already competing against itself, private companies are the energy that really causes a prize to work. For this reason too you need a noticeable amount of money in your prize. No self-respecting businessman is going to go after a prize that doesn't at least show a semblance of being profitable. Also, big numbers just tend to catch the public eye, for a prize to be effective it needs media coverage and the media likes nothing better than throwing around large figures. I hope that all made sense, I'm typing kind of fast as I'm in a bit of a hurry. In summation:

Prize value is proportional to the amount of participation in a prize.

[John Schloendorn]

Personally I don't see BCI as a priority project in terms of life extension, but nice idea nonetheless :-) Sure a good way to get some transhuman memes out. A piece of criticism:

1) Invasive BMI prize - Initial goal of one-way communication from 1000 neurons (or 10,000 neurons).
2) Non-invasive BMI prize - Initial goal of increasing the resolution and number of measurements per unit time (hardware improvements), and/or improving software interpretation of brain activity as it relates to the subject's intent.

I think it would be more spectacular and allow for more creativity if one had real-world goals understandable for the general public, such as control a particular robotic task, or complete a particular computer game (which measures the technical power indirectly)

Edited by John Schloendorn, 02 February 2005 - 12:38 AM.

[ocsrazor]

Hi Cosmos,

Just a quick reply, let me think on this a little . At first blush my response would be that this probably isn't necessary given that there is a tremendous amount of money (billions) and talent going into this field already. People want this stuff in a big way for a number of reasons (notably DARPA wants this stuff in a big way and is funding a majority of the research - a little spooky but at least all those defense dollars are doing a little something good). We don't seem to have the publicity problem that longevity does. The only thing really slowing the field down is that this is a HARD problem, its just going to take us some time to overcome the hands-on technical hurdles.

From personal experience here at Georgia Tech, our lab is one of the most well funded labs on campus and bioengineering/neuroengineering is rapidly becoming one of the most popular new undergraduate majors. This also seems to be the case for academic neuroengineering labs around the country and there is a very rapidly building private industry now. I would like to do some thinking about how to focus the field further, but it really is going at almost top speed already. It just a question of whether efforts are being organized well enough.

Peter

[ocsrazor]

PS If there is a good network systems/web programmer out there who wants to help this effort directly, the Potter Group in the Lab for Neuroengineering is once again looking for an Information Manager. This job would entail managing the internal blog, our electronic paper library, electronic lab notebooks, large scale data storage, general small network support, and developing new and better software systems for coordinating the efforts of our researchers. If you are interested contact me by PM here or look the position up at http://www.neuro.gat...edu/jobs.html#5 our lab is at http://neuro.gatech....tter/index.html

Please spread the word to any of your friends who may be qualified, this is a critical position for advancing our work and this person could have a direct effect on how quickly we are able to develop effective BMI sytems. We are drowning in information, we need someone to help us organize the chaos