It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Reconstructing visual experinces from brain activity.

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:45 PM
After watching the demo clip provided on the website I am quite impressed with such advancements and while still in the early stages of development it offers great possibilites.

Quantitative modeling of human brain activity can provide crucial insights about cortical representations and can form the basis for brain decoding devices. Recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have modeled brain activity elicited by static visual patterns and have reconstructed these patterns from brain activity.

The website explains common FAQ's.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:02 PM
All I can think of is how these amazing possibilities will be abused by companies, law enforcement, tptb, exotic dancers, and crazy girlfriends that don't believe you.

Last one was a joke, but seriously - it'll be fun have them break down that last bit of privacy.*

*I did see that some visual experienced images were not in any way similar to what was shown them, and some were. Think partitioning your memory would help? (I certainly couldn't, I forget where my hands are half the time.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by Vivec

If something like this was used against you by law enforcement in the far future, one way to stump such devices that invade your mind is to think of a brickwall like that teacher did in the film Village of the Damned when those kids tried to read his thoughts. Just had a thought. If they can read images like it showed in the vid, then it might be possible to implant 'false' images/memories. Or even wipeout memories alltogether more efficiently. ?Who can tell how such breakthroughs will be applied by TPTP.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Tindalos2013 because: Changed a word I didn't like.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:35 PM

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by Tindalos2013

When I first heard about this I was really impressed....then as I read more (from different sites) about it I became kind of disappointed......And now I've come around to being impressed again.....Just not so much as I originally was.

Let me explain why. At first I thought this was an actual representation of someone's in they were seeing something on a screen a computer was decoding the 'analog' brain signal and digitizing it and then reconstructing it....a true brain reading device. That is not precisely what is going on.

Instead a person is watching clips...and a computer is monitoring their brain....Then the computer goes through a whole bunch of random movie clips from Youtube and makes a guess.....It's still impressive...but it's not decoding what your brain is visualizing......It's making a guess based on what your brain is doing. To make it more simple...Imagine you are watching the face of someone watching a movie. You see fear on their face. Now imagine that you have ten random movie clips.....Two of them are from horror movies....You would likely guess from watching the expression on the person's face that they were watching one of the Horror movies. That is what is going on here, except instead of watching facial expressions.....the computer is watching the subtle signals of a person's brain.....then picking from a very long list of possible choices, and making a guess. Still impressive but just not quite as impressive as directly decoding the visualization inside the brain.

What bothered me about this, was the method used in producing the image ....making it appear more if it was the actual rough analog signal from the brain....Like a static TV signal, with ghost images from random stray thoughts. This is not what is going is only a blending of the 1st and 2nd and 3rd ( and so on) best possible choices. To me it had seemed like they had intentionally led people astray with this method....Making them think the computer was doing something that it wasn't.

I've since eased up on my criticism a bit....After learning that none of the possible images had come from a list of clips that the subjects actually saw.....It may make a bit more sense that they had to blend them together to make a good guess. Though I still feel that it was presented in a slightly misleading way. Just my opinion.
edit on 24-9-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: Cause I'm a Boss!

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:01 PM
I for one think that while the technology is impressive, it won't be used for the good of the general people. At best, it will open up a whole new level of entertainment technology, similar (or more likely expanding into) the Sim-Stim rigs from William Gibson's Neuromancer series which allow people to record and transfer their experiences to another person. At worst it will be used to allow the State to literally monitor what's going on inside people's heads.
The article I read first offered the idea of being able to see and record peoples dreams, which lends itself to at best psychological or entertainment purposes. It was another 3 paragraphs before they got around to talking about using it to see inside the minds of coma and head trauma victims. (Which IMHO will simply be used to corroborate the notion that there is no brain activity, so just pull the plug.)
The people developing the tech may have the highest aspirations for it, but the people footing the bill for the research are going to want to recoup their money somehow.

top topics

log in