Since Brain-Computer Interfaces are not a distant prophecy but an upcoming technology in rehabilitation, gaming and other fields, they might be used in educational settings as well. Think of virtual trips and tactics training for athletes, or direct communication for teaching and learning (as indicated in the paper linked below).
What will happen if humans and computers are intimately joined? Will it only free human mind from keyboards, mice and other devices, or will it in the end limit students' thought processes to computer capabilities?
Is it something desirable for the broad population or should it be used only for special applications?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0105225
A brain–computer interface (BCI), sometimes called a mind-machine interface (MMI) allow you to manipulate computers and machinery with your thoughts.
This technology was conceived to enable people with paralysis and other disabilities to interact with computers or control robotic arms, all by simply thinking about such actions.
You do not have to be a tech-freak - or a tech-geek when dealing with computers, i.e. computation. Computers are a cultural fact, a cultural device. Literally one's own quality of life crosses throughout the acquaintance one has with technology. As a consequences, the interface is a most positive and desirable relationship.
In other words, the quality of education (to tackle the question raised by Michael) does not depend but it is intrinsically inter oven with the kind of technology one deals with. The higher and better the technology, the higher and better the education. Without any causal relationship - it goes without saying. It's all culture!
Like any other technology, this one also may have its constructive as well as destructive applications. Technological advancements are contemplated by the researchers keeping in view the welfare of the mankind and this particular research bud has a great potential to blossom into a multifaceted bouquet making its revolutionary contribution in the realm of education as well in addition to many others. Any apprehension regarding associated negative implications must not deter any budding research endeavor. Best wishes.
DOI: 10.1145/2468356.2479618 Conference: CHI 2013, Volume: Proceeding CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ABSTRACT ...
http://www.slideshare.net/poerslide/brain-computer-interfaces-10688893
http://lifesciences.ieee.org/articles/114-brain-computer-interfaces-beyond-medical-applications
http://singularityhub.com/2010/01/25/kurzweil-discusses-the-future-of-brain-computer-interfaces-at-x-prize-lab-video/
http://future-bnci.org/images/stories/Future_BNCI_Roadmap.pdf
As far as I know character recognition by fMRI is extremely slow, extremely costly, and completely irrelevant for people with ALS. Stephen Hawkin uses special switches, special care, and employs devoted care givers too. Many patients with ALS never see an SLP with expertise in the field of Augmentative and Alternative Communication. They lack care, many are not offered available and affordable low-tech technology, and need no false optimism on BCI's.
http://www.slideshare.net/vijayrocks123/brain-computerinterfaces-ppt
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/desney/publications/bcihci-chapter1.pdf
Coyle S, Ward T, Markham C (2003) Brain-computer interfaces: A review. Interdiscip Sci Rev 28(2):112–118
Vaughan TM (2003) Guest editorial brain-computer interface technology: A review of the second inter-national meeting. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 11(2):94–109
Picard RW, Klein J (2002) Computers that recognize and respond to user emotion: Theoretical and practical implications. Interact Comput 14(2):141–169
Hjelm SI, Browall C (2000) Brainball—Using brain activity for cool competition. In: Proceedings of NordiCHI 2000
J.P. Donoghue, Connecting cortex to machines: recent advances in brain interfaces. Nat Neurosci. 5 (Suppl), Nov., 1085–1088, (2002).
C. Guger, S. Daban, E. Sellers, C. Holzner, G. Krausz, R. Carabalona, F. Gramatica, and G. Edlinger, How many people are able to control a P300-based brain-computer interface (BCI)? Neurosci Lett, 462, Oct., 94–98, (2009).
Hi Shanker, No neurology in there, and no AAC.
As to cognitive science, I read Schoenmakers et al, 2014, interesting, but just a few characters per minute. Is that not enough?
Schoenmakers, S. Gerven van M, Heskes, T. 2014. Gaussian Mixture Models Improve fMRI-based Image Reconstruction. IEEE 978-1-4799-4149-0
Studies shown the possibility to create functional, bidirectional, real-time interfaces between living brain tissue and artificial devices. It is reasonable to predict that further research on brain–machine interfaces will lead to the development of a new generation of neuroprosthetic devices aimed at restoring motor functions in severely paralysed patients, and maybe one day it could help special needs students to go forward in education.
Dear Joris,
You must be aware of Right brothers' vision to fly leading to their fatal attempt to fly. Did that deter the researchers or inspire them continuing efforts in that direction which paved the path to the present form of aviation. If man saw only the dark side of the cloud, he would never land on Moon, Mars... & so on.
Research is an integration of numerous deltas. Each dx contributed by every researcher (successful or failing) adds up to lead them deeper and deeper into a substance... element... molecule... atom... nucleus... electron... proton... ... ...
Rome was not built in a day.
A researcher must have a positive attitude as well as an aptitude to learn even from the failures.
This is a feature article
file:///C:/Users/DELL/Downloads/Filetoupload,223749,en%20(1).pdf
As far as I know, the Wright brothers were admirable visionairies who could not get their articles published, except in the journal for Bee keepers - nobody was interested in aircraft at the time, let alone in the problem of how to turn around once an airplane was flying. Also, they had a bicycle shop to finance their efforts .
This kind of thing may happen again, some things are hard to predict, science is just one of hem. As it stands the BCI is not useful. To offer false hope is unethical.
And... I feel that there is a lot in AAC that merits more attention than it gets. One of those things is more effective interfaces for students with special needs. This is one of my own research interests, Morse Code for special needs. I do not see ... why on earth try BCI for that?
Dear Michael,
Dear All,
Brain-computer interface is a very useful and interesting opportunity which – however – may have some risks. Using this facility some students will be able to cheat perfectly ... This is but a tiny risk. I do not know the operation such an appliance. How can this machine distinguish an idea and a command? Is it possible that a playful or uncontrolled thought is interpreted as a command? I think this may have some even serious consequences. E.g. somebody thinks on a slap and his/her partner will be slapped.
@Jorvis
As it stands the BCI is not useful.
This may be true. However, the beauty of research is that it doesn't stand.
http://www.schalklab.org/sites/default/files/misc/Brain-Computer%20Interface%20Technology%20-%20A%20Review%20of%20the%20First%20International%20Meeting.pdf
B. Graimann et al. (eds.), Brain–Computer Interfaces, The Frontiers Collection, 1
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-02091-9_1, C Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010
Hi Shanker,
So we agree on the facts. As for optimism, I find that risky, because it diverts attention from what they call low hanging fruit. Including low-tech.
Joris
An Educative Brain-Computer Interface
Kirill A. Sorudeykin
(Submitted on 13 Mar 2010)
In this paper we will describe all necessary parts of Brain-Computer Interface (BCI), such as source of signals, hardware, software, analysis, architectures of complete system. We also will go along various applications of BCI, view some subject fields and their specifics. After preface we will consider the main point of this work-concepts of using BCI in education. Represented direction of BCI development has not been reported prior. In this work a computer system, currently being elaborated in author's laboratory, will be specified. A purpose of it is to determine a degree of clearness of studied information for certain user according to their indications of brain electrical signals. On the basis of this information the system is able to find an optimal approach to interact with each single user. Feedback individualization leads to learning effectiveness increasing. Stated investigations will be supplemented by author's analytical reasoning on the nature of thinking process.
Subjects: Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
Cite as: arXiv:1003.2660 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:1003.2660v1 [cs.HC] for this version)
Brain-computer interfaces may free humans from memorising things, and concentrate to creative thinking.
Some selected bibliography is:
- Theodore W. Berger, et al BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACES, springer 2008.
- Rao_R.P.N. Brain-Computer Interfacing: An Introduction, Cambridge, 2013
- Christoph Guger, et al, (Eds) Brain–Computer Interface Research: A State-of-the-Art Summary, Springer, 2013.
@Joris
Sorry Joris, with numerous positive findings reported by optimistic researchers, I am still not able to agree with you. What I said was to mean (and I hope it does) , "even if what you said was right".
@Costas, Shanker.
One of my teachers told us that one may train memory, as one may train thinking, and suggested that we should combine these faculties. What the future may bring I can not know, let us agree that there must be room for many voices, in science as elsewhere.
Computers interfaces could help neuron-prosthetic devices for restoring motor functions, they couldn't generate cognitive functions. Computers interfaces are only electric simulators not brain functioning intelligence. Intelligence which is a set of memory, logic of thinking, continuous learning, emotions, imagination and reasoning.. and much more features of each personality couldn't be summarized into electrical processing circuitry even with a simulated processor or a functional motor memory .
BCI (Brain computer interface) is a pretty amazing technology that could empower those with some form of body-paralysis, with Parkinson's Disease, and especially the visually and hearing impaired where they can now rely on other options to receive and transmit data from their own brains. With cochlear implants, deaf people are probably, for the first time, able to experience what hearing is all about.
However, as with anything electronic, this has its limitations, particularly in its emergent stages. Computer interfaces can make certain processes easier (and possible) but they cannot simulate the human brain and its complexities.
I agree with that, Monica, and saw the advantage of cochlear implants with my own eyes. Still, if one wants a high return on investment, researched varieties of low tech AAC, such as shown on www.talkingmats.com, are just as amazing and might be applied much wider than they currently are, and not just in education.
Michael, in response to your question "What will happen if humans and computers are intimately joined?" I would say this possibility will greatly expand the boundaries of what humans could know and do. The abilities of human beings will be greatly enhanced in multiple dimensions.
Hi Rauf,
At one time I measured my typing speed, somewhat above 300 characters per minute. Would you consider that closely connected?
I am working in the field and I must say, that the expectations created by a paper like the one cited in the original question are completely misleading and overexaggerated. Which is by far not the author's fault!
1) The only ethical direct brain-machine-coupling for people not in need of a brain surgery is and will have to be non-invasive. Surgery for the fun of it is unethical, which takes both ECoG and intracortical implants for medical use only.
2) That leaves only EEG, NIRS and MR systems for acquiring data from the brain (at this time, I admit). Other electrical surces like muscles shouldn't be ruled out though!
3) MR is out of question for home use.
4) That puts the burden on EEG and/or NIRS (or both). What can we expect from them? They both work on low frequencies (up to say 100Hz) and that in itself limits the data throughput according to Shannon-Hartley's Theorem. And here the problems start:
If nobody is able to find a trick to improve it, then the noise in non-lab environments and the "natural" noisy signal from bran will require unprecedented signal processing solutions, to make a reasonable data stream available.
Even if that is solved, there is only a handful of signal types known to be reasonably detected in an EEG data set - even with high channel numbers - again, not an easy task in home environments due to the tedious way of setting up EEG-recordings.
So, for the time being, I do not expect from brain surface signals more than -say 4 (-8) control channels realiably utilized. That means less buttons as there is on a standard TV-remote. Does that qualify for the euphoria towards "finally direct brain connection"? In my lab we did for the fun of it run computer games controlled by BCI against simple and unexpensive eye-tracking control.... BCI always lost in these games :-( I know, some patients do not have control over their eye anymore, for those few BCI might be the only solution towards communications.... bur for the average healthy person (student or gamer) ?? I do by far not see at all that we are on this field even close to a mind-meld or any way of cheating in studies!
Honestly: For non-invasive use, BCI is not anything near a real world application.
Hi Ulrich,
Eye tracking control is not always simple and unexpensive, and more importantly... it is not always possible. No, the best way to go is switches but quite regrettably, you can not get it funded. Despite Morse Code being a proven and widely applied system for almost two hundred years now.
Dear Joris,
I agree, we all have to comply with the famous "no free lunch theorem" of decision making: There is and probably will never be a "one-solution-fits-all" when it comes to patient's needs.
What I clearly want to emphasize is: we as developers have to finally put the patient into the focus of our research! What does the patient really need, not what we engineers think it might be - as long as the field continues arguing like do-gooders.
If we take a more economic approach, we'd look where the market is, because thats where the funding and the money will be. IMHO, it is not with a relatively "small" group of patients, but with the huge number the gaming industry is serving. Real world problems solved for the latter will heavily benefit the former! (check the approach emotiv is taking).
So, BCI is by far not near where it could be, but it is clearly lightyears away from anything which was raised in Michael Brückner's original question: An intimate connection with a computer. And even further away from daily use in teaching and training. Just because in the lab you can find the "error potential" does not mean that you can cheat in exams. Sorry, but NEO's (The Matrix) upload of KungFu skills is not even thinkable with the methods proposed.
Hi Ulrich, I feel one should strife to falisify theories with a mind open to the unexpected and find that this idea is not easy to apply. One can not falsify a real patient or so it seems, as one can not falsify established facts and apparently can not easily falsify elementary mathematics. However, there are downsides to facts, math, and patients alike. Math need not apply to the problem at hand, or not yet. Patients may feel little understood and their complaints may be misrepresented. And a field may need theories that can be falsified, if only to clarify.
Some details about the CNS are sorted out as a kind of collateral damage during these expensive research enterprises defended as looking for BCI, projects like BrainGain in the Netherlands. And some psychologists like Desain hope that it will lead to what they call 'the code of the neuron'. Poor lot, studied little neuroanatomy I fear, when I was young psychologists were not even allowed to attend a post mortem with an opened skull.
Still, some things do come out of these projects. Schoenmaker's paper is an example of clear progress by applied mathematics that seem well applied too. Probably your own laboratory found things as well. And I, for one, would like to compete with both BCI ánd eye-gaze, having conversations with a single switch only. Would even bet on the outcome!
Consider to look at some videos at my website and reconsider what you suggest, that there would be no need to research morse code for locked in. Because... there we apparantly disagree.
There was a private mail asking for an explanation how the brain computer interfaces work. It may be of general interest to non-specialists (like I am), so I post the following link.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/brain-computer-interface.htm
The other day I measured my input speed with a single switch and Stepped Morse, a variant that needs only clicks, not dashes. There is Passive Stepped Morse, Active Stepped Morse, Active Inverted Stepped Morse and more and I used a copy task of poetry to do it with.
My rate was 19.6 characters per minute with a copy task and I felt intimately connected to my computer because this took my full attention. Still, with exercise, this rate might well go up, and I am prepared to show it to whoever will pay me my train ticket. And will even bet that it takes me less than a minute to say 'good afternoon to you' or 'how is it, these days'.
Some kids, of course, never learn to read, can not spell, and never will learn Morse Code. They might use row column scanning with The Grid2, or may use one of over a thousand communication aids now commercially available, or might use low tech, that has a record of high-quality and cost effective and that often a great pleasure to the family. Books have been written with eye-blink alone, as was so admirably shown in this movie about the Butterfly. Same as wheelchair bound people with diminished vision. Probably low-tech is best.
Therefore, please consider. As for now, Morse Code is much faster than BCI and this will probably remain the case as long as the rather elusive, ill-defined 'code of the neuron' is not broken. If it exists, given the complicated architecture of our central nervous systems, and if all this will not remain science fiction for ever.
I am fascinated - I am scared.
Brian computer interfaces already are and will be a great help to a lot of people.
Most probably in some near or far future we will control computers with our brain and parts oft he body (eyes, muscles, ...).
Our way to work, teach and learn – our way to live – will change again.
That will be fantastic.
Today, we discuss about data protection, personality rights and some other dangers that are part and that we see in the Internet. If one day, I can write this text moving my eyes, thinking the letters or even think, what I want to write and the computer writes and corrects my text, it may also be possible to send a text to me – to my brain.
Fort he moment, I don’t think, we will get thought control over the Internet. But maybe one day?
That gets my face white of fear.
I don’t think, that brain computer interfaces will take over learning.
Learning happens easily, when the conditions are optimal, but most often, even when it makes fun, learning is hard work. It would be an illusion that brain computer interfaces will facilitate learning for everyone.
But it already can and will even more in future help to learn (maybe faster, maybe deeper, maybe easier, maybe ...) some people.
We should and we will tray out the possibilities – sparkling with fascination and trembling with scepticism.
Great question, Michael. Thinking about this from a social learning theory perspective, I think these connections could be quite limiting in circumstances where the interface directly mediates communication and negotiation of meaning with others.
mmh already our students have stopped thinking ,they solely rely on already made answers using calculators,internet to answer all quetions.The net is at their fingers -androids,,BB..all sorts of gadgets!!!Reasonig is gone. so extending this further,we are likely to turn the next generation into robots!!!.The evolution of new brain and behavioural change which DAVID BUSS called Psychological evolution ,where cultural forces creates the emergence of new human behaviour,is a reality not predictions.This might be the last thinking generation within human brain.Like Roland quoted..I also scared!!!
@ Ijeoma Anumaka :-: Here's a nice (or should I say sad?) example of "they solely rely on already made answers using calculators". This week I supervised an examination of computer science students at the end of a course on "Knowledge Based Systems". These students are supposed to be fit in at least first year mathematics (sic!).
Now one of the questions I had devised in such a way that the answer when applying a certain formula was 22 divided by 55, which as every school child has been taught is equal to 2 divided by 5 or, simply, 40% (which makes sense in context because it was an exercise in probability calculation). How shall I describe my astonishment when one of the students asked me, why he wasn't allowed to make use of an calculator in order to perform the dividion of 22 by 55........
I was thinking of "they solely rely on already made answers using calculators". Why is this so strange? Surely we expect that what we were thinking in our time now becomes a simple computer computation! Of course we have not yet seeing the new generation in using all the technological means to attack extremely difficult problems. Let us await to see!
Nothing against clever, critical, creative use of calculators or other "tools of the mind" (Donald Norman), but unthoughtful use may lead to detoriation of certain essential higher order cognitive faculties (skills), like being able to quickly recognize a faulty or unplausible "answer" of the tool.
This phenomenon is wide-spread in applied social sciences, when students / researchers blindly rely on statistical software packages without really understanding what they are doing or - worse - with a false understanding of it.
Think of "students" of mathematics who will be allowed to use Mathematica or other similar powerful mathematics packages to solve exercises during homework or examinations. With a bag of tricks and techniques it may be possible for such students to solve most of the problems without really understanding what they are doing or what the tools is (supposed to be) doing for them. If society feels this is all we expect from applied (?) mathematicians, it be so, but I feel that something essential in the process of solving problems is lost then.
What do you think? Is teaching students to effectively and efficiently use tools or artefacts of the mind more important than trying to teach them genuine problem solving? But where and how do we raise then the next generation of scholars and researchers who are able to push science forward? The practitioners versus the theoreticians? The scientists versus the engineers? Difficult questions for society, but also for every next generation of students who have to decide what they want to be in future.
Dear Paul,
I understand your problematic about using the "tools of mind". However human and his niche constitute a whole, and develop together. Environment makes human more intelligent and human makes his environment more intelligent! With any serious change of the environment (e.g. "mind tools", etc.) one expects that human will change accordingly. Problem solving will always be a basic ingredient of human. The only thing that might change is the "level" of application. Low level, is left for "tools of mind", higher level are just for humans proper. We have to wait to see these new powers of humans!
Dear Costas,
Now I see more clearly what you mean, and I agree, to a certain degree. Probably, your ideas are closely related to the philosophy (epistemology) that is at the basis of so-called ecological psychology (Gibson), or what is called situated cognition in the field of education (for instance Lave & Wenger 1991, and many others). It is a point of view, or a research programme if you like, I don't think it will ever be proved in the strict sense, in the same sense that the old nature-nurture debate will never end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situated_cognition
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521423740
Dear all,
Thank you very much for sharing your views.
Regards,
Janina
Overreliance on a brain-computer interface might, as you suggest, Michael, limit some of the user's understanding of interactivity. However, I think that BCIs are critical to support rehabilitation or enhanced function for persons who have no other hope of rehabilitation - as well as to enhance capabilities and convenience for the everyman.
As a person who interacts with a special needs child on a daily basis, BCI technology builds hope in me. People with foot drop can now actually send messages to their nerves through bluetooth technology. People will one day find it easy to connect to external equipment, then initiate movement simply by visualising that movement. And it is not limited to movement only. I have great hope of finding it easier to understand the indecipherable spoken voice of some special needs persons using technology that translates the thoughts to audible messages or text. So instead of having to construct an idea from the two words I do understand, the whole message will be revealed to me using BCI technology.
Any technology if overused can have detrimental effects. If we sit too long in front of a TV or computer, we create sedentary lifestyles and have physical degradation, causing ill health for ourselves. We consist of mind, body, and spirit, and I struggle to find a balance to keep all aspects healthy. Responsible use of BCI technology must be ensured (research, user guidelines, process monitoring and improvement...) to promote better lives rather than overdependency on this or any other technology.
An amazing material, especially video! http://computer.howstuffworks.com/brain-computer-interface.htm
I have high hopes for the direct man-machine link, too.
But please folks, check the achieved Information-Trasnfer-Rates with any of the systems around!
It's somewhere with 4-10 bits per MINUTE with non-invasive BCI and according to recent papers with a monkey around 4 bits per SECOND. WE ARE TALKING BITS HERE! Not even Bytes, kiloBytes of even Gigabytes as in recent USB or ethernet....
I am surprised any body gets excited for a new, but broken button on a computer mouse....
Sorry, I am such a realist.
Sure Ulrich, but what bothers me is that with cheaper switches higher rates are possible.
So.. what are those researchers looking for. Is it fundamental neuro science - even the code of the neuron as some put it - or is it care and better communication aids for the handicapped?
@Joris: It is not about cheaper switches, it is about feasibility! Here is an overview of (I guess) almost all currently known, non-invasive BCI paradigms. These are the only ones ethically acceptable. Just a couple of years ago, people started to use combinations thereof... Now, assign optimistic 10bits per min to each paradigm - with combinations probably less - and you are ending somewhere in the 100 bit per min range. Make it optimistic a 1000 bit per min - is that the throughput everybody is excited about?
Now take as alternative approach the upper limit given by the Shannon-Hartley Theorem of Channel load. Given the limitations of the max 50Hz EEG channels, you are with the current SNR of 2:1 not getting more than 80 bit per SEC .... and even here: Is that the bus speed you wuld like to surf the internet with?
I am absolutely convinced, that the BCI efforts are turning up a lot for neuroscience and severely disabled - but I cannot share the excitement for everyday everybody use. We are not and probably will never reach there as the movie "Surrogate" presents.....
Important: BCI IS NON-INVASIVE!
uli
When computers were first developed, the cost was exorbitant, the size was enormous, processing speed was painfully slow, and the technology was limited, thus making people limited in their vision of the possibilities for computer applications. Leaders within the sphere couldn't imagine anybody would ever want a personal computer.
Today, BCI may come with an exorbitant pricetag and very slow transfer rates, and may only be available through limited trials or to only the most affluent clients. That does not mean that it will never become ubiquitous. Development takes place because we all have different visions and dreams and competencies. Together, these shape a reality that no single person can imagine.
I may not be able to pay for what I envision, but there are innovative payment arrangements that could help people in need to afford the equipment they need. I have seen special needs blogs where crowd-sourcing has helped parents buy equipment to help their children communicate. There are funding agencies and other sponsorship arrangements that might step in. Also, as equipment becomes more established and the technology commonplace, prices go down.
So I continue to dream for the customisability and affordability of technology, especially to serve special needs persons.
Hi Marcia,
I also hope for more customizable technology for people with special needs, hope for prices that allow to make some money with it, and for science both basic and applied, and hope for high return on investment on communication aids and the like. And as it is, for high return on investment low tech is the best bet, see Talking Mats for instance, now also available with Android.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics