Science-Based Medicine

Dec 19 2012

Brain-Machine Interface

Published by Steven Novella under Neuroscience/Mental Health
Comments: 25

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Brain-Machine Interface”.

25 responses so far

25 Responses to “Brain-Machine Interface”

# cervanteson 19 Dec 2012 at 10:00 am

Of course one difficulty with cutting edge technology is that we are going down multiple paths at once, often making very large investments in more than one, and we might get somewhere else first that makes this entire endeavor largely moot. If we are able to reconnect severed spinal cords, or regrow lost limbs, not much use for this technology after all. Indeed, it can never be a good substitute for the real thing.

Another problem: Is this really the best use of our (now more and more limited) biomedical research dollars? It’s trivially obvious that we could get vastly more benefit from the same investment in preventing diseases that affect literally thousands of times more people. Just something to think about.
# Hilary Mark Nelsonon 19 Dec 2012 at 10:18 am

The Nature article about virtual sensations in monkey subjects was co-authored by Miguel Nicoleilis, who has written an excellent book about his work with brain-machine interfaces (BMIs): “Beyond boundaries : the new neuroscience of connecting brains with machines—and how it will change our lives.” If you’re interested in this subject, I highly recommend it.

The only quibble I have with the book is that he got carried away when describing potential future applications of the technology. At a couple of points in the book he speculates that we might one day explore the surface of other planets using BMIs. Unless he’s talking about doing it from orbit around the planets, the speed of light makes that vision impossible.

In order for the brain to stay in synch with the device you’re controlling, and to have that sense of ownership, the control signals and the feedback (video or direct stimulation of the brain) needs to happen within the same time frame that your nerves would require to pass signals to and from parts of your body — a few hundred milliseconds.

A signal takes something like 2.4 seconds to make the round trip to the moon. That’s an order of magnitude beyond the maximum time that a BMI link could tolerate, and the moon is the closest place we could go. The lag time to Mars would be measured in minutes. If you’ve ever tried to type when your word processor is lagging and the letters aren’t appearing immediately, you’ll recognize the impossibility of trying to control a robot with a BMI if there’s any significant lag in the communications.

Other than that minor point, Nicoleilis’ book is excellent.
# WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 19 Dec 2012 at 10:32 am

Two points:

- ZOMG CLOSER TO GIANT MECHA!!!!!!
- Can you use magnetic induction to charge a battery through the loops of wire implanted just under the skin?

Cervantes, your failure to recognize the importance of this advance vis-a-vis giant mecha is disappointing.*

*Your point via the investment of scarce research dollars and most “bang for buck” is distressingly (from a giant mecha perspective) perspicacious.
# Scotton 19 Dec 2012 at 10:42 am

If we are able to reconnect severed spinal cords, or regrow lost limbs, not much use for this technology after all. Indeed, it can never be a good substitute for the real thing.

Not at all. There’s no particular reason the technology has to be limited to replacing lost function – it’s just that it’s currently too invasive/risky to seriously consider using it to ADD more functionality.

Doc Ock style extra limbs, potentially stronger or otherwise more capable than those we presently have, are an obvious minor extension to the technology. People are already talking about using it to provide a better computer interface than mouse/keyboard/touchscreen. And I have no doubt other applications will be devised.

If a means can be devised to provide appropriate-resolution electrodes without major surgery, the possibilities are almost limitless. That’s a major hurdle with no obvious route to an answer today, but I decline to label it impossible.
# rorkon 19 Dec 2012 at 10:59 am

I am tired of this keyboard and screen, and have been waiting a long time for direct-to-brain.
# mousethatroaredon 19 Dec 2012 at 2:34 pm

Cool! Thanks for the update SN – I enjoy your critical approach to the topic. It’s easy to get caught up in the excitement of new technology and forget that looking at concerns like possibility of infection and power sources are important ways to improve those innovations and make them a real possibility.

I do wonder about an implantable post that can accommodate a clip on device similar to the BAHA (Bone Anchor Hearing Aid)..But the BAHA post is implanted into the skull to receive vibrations – it’s not implanted into the brain. Obviously I’m in over my head (sorry).

I heard an interview with Miguel Nicoleilis on the Diane Rehms show awhile back. Very interesting and worth checking out if you want to hear more.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-12-30/miguel-nicolelis-beyond-boundaries-rebroadcast
# gearson 19 Dec 2012 at 2:38 pm

Man, I was going to suggest wirelessly charged batteries, but you beat me to it WLU.
# WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 19 Dec 2012 at 2:41 pm

But unlike me, you sound like you could build one

Suggestions are easy, execution not so much. I wonder if it could be done without heating the tissue an undue amount?
# Terminuson 19 Dec 2012 at 4:59 pm

Hey cool, my area of research on SBM!

Our research group works with surface electrodes, but we of course follow all the implanted electrode work. They are definitely the future, being able to detect the activity of individual neurons rather than millions or billions makes a huge difference. However they are still a way away from permanent, everyday use implants, even for those who really need them like tetraplegics. Let alone amputees, or even normal folk who don’t like moving to change the channel! When they leave the laboratory, I imagine they will be wireless to reduce the risk of infection. I see surface electrode systems being used sooner, and then slowly being replaced by implanted systems, for less and less serious disorders, until we eventually buy implants like a new mobile phone.

I am particularly fascinated by this technologies ability to treat a wide spectrum of disorders in the same way. We are often capturing movement at the ‘intent to move’ stage, so if anything in between this brain system and actual movement of the body is impaired – we can just bypass it all with the same device and restore some quality of life. This means the same treatment can be used for paralysis, amputation, muscular dystrophy, stroke, tremors, muscle weakness, cerebral palsy etc…

This ‘intent to move’ even creates some interesting ethical dilemmas. Since suppression of a movement can take place at a later stage, if a patient pulls a trigger – did they actually mean to do it? Or did they only imagine it? Or would normally have stopped themselves?

We also have the potential to expose useful brain signals that are normally contained entirely within the brain. For example there is a distinct signal when we observe an error – and it is different if we make the error, or somebody else makes the error. Preparing safety systems like brakes for your car? Or improving the accuracy of speech to text perhaps?
# gearson 19 Dec 2012 at 5:34 pm

@WLU

Naw dude, that was just some serious technobabble, and it looks like you fell for it

But seriously. Like you said, the implementation is the hard part. Hence the dearth of giant mechas.
# elburtoon 19 Dec 2012 at 6:11 pm

Hmm. Perhaps my robotic exoskeleton could be a reality some day?

As someone with impaired proprioception, and multifocal neuropathy that’s rendered my sensory nerves virtually useless, this field is incredibly exciting.

I am almost as intelligent as a monkey, so who knows? Perhaps the future has a glimmer of. hope.
# mousethatroaredon 19 Dec 2012 at 6:27 pm

“These sensations, that we take for granted and may not even be aware of, are specific functions of our brains. The brain uses sensory feedback, which it coordinates with motor intention and movement, to create the sensation that we occupy our bodies.”

Maybe this is a weird leap, but – if we use sensory feedback to train the brain to recognize an object as part of the body, can we use sensory feedback to train to brain to stop recognizing a particular sensation?

I’m thinking of things like phantom limb and paresthesia.
# WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 19 Dec 2012 at 6:51 pm

It’s nice to see that people are starting to focus on the important parts of this topic – giant mecha.

Do I wish were born ten years later, so I stood a better chance of benefiting from this kind of advance? Or do I appreciate when I was actually born because I saw what the world was like before the massive leaps forward in computing?

It’s nice to live in exciting technological (wow, check out this touch screen phone!) rather than Chinese proverb (wow, check out how many of my fellow farmers died because of civil war) times.
# mousethatroaredon 19 Dec 2012 at 8:17 pm

WLU – I’m pretty sure I’d be excited about gaint mecha if I knew what it was…

no, no, don’t tell me. I prefer to enjoy the mystery.
# bhamion 19 Dec 2012 at 11:12 pm

Key application areas for these technologies will be industrial control — situations such as manipulating robots in Chernobyl or Dai Ichi Fukushima or in a space walk, where direct human presence is dangerous, due to radiation or other hazards, but where the human controller can be within a few hundred yards or a few miles, so that light speed delays are not an issue.
# Purenoizon 19 Dec 2012 at 11:43 pm

@terminus

Can I come work with you in about 6-12 years? We really need to get the Giant Mechs prepared. I’m just not sure if WLU is thinking Robotech style mechs or MechWarrior style.
Either way, where did I park my 2000 ton mech?
# Lytrigianon 20 Dec 2012 at 12:01 am

I’m sure these aren’t as “high resolution” as the manufacturers claim, and since they appear to attach over hair as well as skin they’re probably even less sensitive than more carefully placed scalp electrodes, but I thought I’d drop this here anyway as possibly relevant: http://www.emotiv.com/

There do not as yet seem to be any applications available for giant mecha control.
# agitatoon 20 Dec 2012 at 8:05 am

@mousethatroared

I didn’t know what Giant Mecha was either but I do now. (google images: giant mecha)

Good grief. I then went straight to…google images: cute kittens
# WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 20 Dec 2012 at 10:01 am

@Purenoiz

Is there really any bad type of giant mecha? Though I personally lean towards Glitterboy – it stretches the definition of both “giant” and “mecha”, but you do get a boom gun and you don’t have to get out to poop or eat.
# elburtoon 20 Dec 2012 at 2:46 pm

WLU – I’m with you. For me, being a BOOM!bot with an electronic body, inbuilt weaponry, and maybe some cool lighting effects, is win/win.

Don’t get me wrong, my powerchair is great, but it lacks a certain oomph, or. visual impact.

mouse -

can we use sensory feedback to train to brain to stop recognizing a particular sensation?

I’m thinking of things like phantom limb and paresthesia.

I’ve used ad hoc CBT on myself to help with paraesthesia, and some new, but surprisingly simple methods, have been aiding amputees with PLS:

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/medicine2.html

The answer is mirrors+CBT. I have an acquaintance born with a missing foot who was plagued by PLS, and they’ve undergone a trial of mirror training, and experienced reduced pain and negative feedback.

As it seems like the ‘map’ to the body is hard-coded, maybe the sensory training mentioned above could, as you suggested, be developed to assist with extreme paraesthesia and PLS.
# Kandleon 20 Dec 2012 at 6:06 pm

There is already a bionic implant which goes inside the skull (cochlear implant). I imagine that a neural mechanical interface could use similar technologies for power and communications.
# 2Healthyon 29 Dec 2012 at 8:51 pm

Certainly the “open circuit brain” isn’t a good idea, very prone to very dangerous infections sooner or later.
I agree, radio,bluetooh,wifi or some wireless communication system should be used. A battery installed inside may be charged by inducction. Moreover they could be charged by movement, like some watches.
The power for so close range antenna woudn’t be to high, 10 mW?, moreless like a LED.
Besides I bet that resolution from surface readings may seem “too wide” but with proper deconvolution and personalized machine learning you could probably get the same resolution as in intracraneal arrays.
Also if instead of a single simple arm controler they used something more computer-like with a cam they could get the arm to do much of the hard work by itself. Mind it a motor movement is more exact than ours.

For funding, research and peer finding please refer to the non-profit Aging Portfolio.
# Naradon 29 Dec 2012 at 9:29 pm

A battery installed inside may be charged by inducction. Moreover they could be charged by movement, like some watches.

This is getting silly. Putting an inductive coil in someone’s head presents certain practical obstacles, if you will. Self-winding piezoelectric clockworks are just apropos of nothing.
# get bigger boobson 08 Feb 2013 at 11:51 am

get bigger boobs…

Science-Based Medicine » Brain-Machine Interface…
# HopDavidon 08 Mar 2013 at 3:24 pm

I’m wondering why they put implants on the surface of the brain. If the implants communicate with a robotic arm, why wouldn’t they be placed on afferent and efferent nerves going to the arm?

Happy to see a skeptic enthused by this technology. My son-in-law was recently paralyzed. There are a lot of very optimistic claims, often being made by scammers preying on people who are already suffering terribly. A lot of hype and false promises going on. But also some legitimate reasons to be hopeful.

Buying the Miguel Nicoleilis book as per Hilary Mark Nelson’s suggestion.