How many directions can EEG control.
If this is just up and down based on your level of concentration, it is relatively useless. However, if it maps all 6 directions, it is pretty impressive.
If this is just up and down based on your level of concentration, it is relatively useless. However, if it maps all 6 directions, it is pretty impressive.
For example, this one was having the subject think about making a fist, but it could be that having them "will" the copter to move right could be more intuitive. And with the right machine learning/recognizer it might be feasible.
This would be a serious amount of fun to work on.
With this you have turn left, turn right, and both together is turn up.
To really fly it you need another control for speed. (They just made the speed constant.)
Fascinating and cool as hell, but really limited for HCI applications.
Some of these signals are spontaneous (realizing an error has been made), some are produced by voluntarily executing some mental task. Currently, the amount of these 'channels' that is available is limited by 1) the amount of detectors that a lab is willing to build, and 2) how many tasks the user can simultaneously execute — which is typically very low. If you really want a number, I would settle for four as the current state of the art.
I have been working on a method to make problem 1) so easy it can be solved by laymen by just collecting examples of EEG during the task of interest. Now we are founding a startup to make this happen commercially :).
PS: I think this technology does not lend itself well for analogies with channels or buttons. Buttons were invented for a physical world. Brain-computer interfaces lend itself to interact with signals there are /not/ available in normal interaction (i.e. relevance, errors, intended movements etc).
In five years we can potentially see brain-computer interfaces for consumers. I fear using the word 'solid' though, since I isn't a replacement for traditional input like the mouse or keyboard (that is what I would call solid). The biggest challenge I see is that we have to help consumers understand what it can do. I feel this technology is a game changer, but it is difficult to pinpoint what game is being changed. Therefore, it will at least take a while to get mainstream.
Also replacing the keyboard is a worthwhile goal. A lot of people get RSI, and I think even at something fast like 100 wps our brain to computer "bandwidth" is pretty slow. (And typing fast takes a lot of practice)
For non-invase (i.e. EEG measured from outside the body) EEG I think that is still far off. The problem is that the signals are measured from a distance, and that it is very hard isolate signals from a precise region in the brain which is needed for accurate control.
I typically express the performance of these brain-computer interfaces in bits/minute. Keyboard gets roughly around 300 bits/min, brain-computer interfaces 2-20 bits/min. I would not know the bandwidth (and latency) requirements for reliable prosthesis control, but that would probably depend on intended use of the prosthesis. But then again, not all the actuators need to be controlled individually; maybe it is feasible with a smart controller and a forgiving application. And of course usability plays a major role; I cannot imagine controlling a prosthesis using the keyboard, although the information throughput might be sufficient :).
It is highly unlikely that an EEG BCI will ever replace any normal task, as the performance relative to any reliable motor movement for direct control is terrible. For instance, if you have an eye tracker, you can reliably out perform the best BCI. It is really aimed at severely paralyzed people who don't have any other means of communication. The idea is undoubtedly cool and compelling, but the practicality of BCI for healthy subject use is very limited.