Search This Blog

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Brain Scans Let Computer 'Read' Visual Activity


computer image mapping parts of the brain

"Brain Reading" Device Can Predict What People See

What's on your mind? Neuroscientists may one day find out

Venturing into the preserve of science fiction and stage magicians, scientists in the United States claim to have made extraordinary progress towards reading the brain.

The researchers said they had been able to decode signals in a key part of the brain to identify images seen by a volunteer, according to their study, published by the British journal Nature.

The tool used by the University of California at Berkeley neuroscientists is functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a non-invasive scanner that detects minute flows of blood within the brain, thus highlighting which cerebral areas are triggered by light, sound and touch.

Their zone of interest was the visual cortex -- a frontal part of the brain that reconstitutes images sent by the retina.

Using two of their number as volunteers, the team built a computational model based on telltale blood-flow patterns in three key areas of the visual cortex.

The signatures were derived from 1,750 images of objects, such as horses, trees, buildings and flowers, that were flashed up in front of the subjects.

Using this model, the programme then scanned a new set of 120 brand new pictures to predict what kind of fMRI patterns these would make in the visual cortex.

After that, the volunteers themselves looked at the 120 new pictures while being scanned. The computer then matched the measured brain activity against the predicted brain activity, and picked an image that it believed was the closest match.

They notched up a 92-percent success rate with one volunteer, and accuracy was 72 percent in the other. The probability of this happening on the basis of chance -- i.e. the computer picking the right image out of the 120 -- is only 0.8 percent.

In an email to AFP, lead author Jack Gallant likened the task to that of a magician who asks a member of the audience to pick a card from a pack, and then figures out which one it was.

"Imagine that we begin with a large set of photographs chosen at random," Gallant said.

"You secretly select just one of these and look at it while we measure your brain activity. Given the set of possible photographs and the measurements of your brain activity, the decoder attempts to identify which specific photograph you saw."

The ambitious experiment was taken a stage further, expanding the set of novel images from 120 to up to 1,000. The first volunteer took this test, and accuracy declined, but only slightly, from 92 percent to 82 percent.

"Our estimates suggest that even with a set of one billion images -- roughly the number of images indexed by Google on the Internet -- the decoder would correctly identify the image about 20 percent of the time," said Gallant.

The researchers say the device cannot "read minds," the common term for unscrambling thoughts. It cannot even reconstruct an image, only identify an image that was taken from a known set, they point out.

All the same, the potential is enormous, they believe.

Doctors could use the technique to diagnose brain areas damaged by a stroke or dementia, determine the outcome of drug treatment or stem-cell therapy and fling open a door into the strange world of dreams.

And, according to one futuristic scenario, paraplegic patients, by thinking of a series of images whose fMRI patterns are recognised by computer, may one day be able to operate machines by remote control.

Even so, brain-reading is hedged with potential controversy.

Within 30 or 50 years, advances could raise fears about breach of privacy and authoritarian abuse of the kind that dog biotechnology today, the authors say.

"No-one should be subjected to any form of brain-reading process involuntarily, covertly, or without complete informed consent," they say.

Although the two subjects were also investigators, there was no risk that the outcome of the test was skewed by suggestion or subliminal cues, co-researcher Kendrick Kay told AFP.

"Decoding performance was evaluated on a dataset that is completely independent of the one used to estimate the computational model," said Kay.

"There is no plausible way that a subject could somehow make the evaluation dataset easier to decode by our computational algorithms."

more...

Mind Reading? Brain Scanning Opens New Windows To Our Brain
Over the years, scientists have tried to uncover the mysteries of man’s most complicated organ: the brain. Today’s attempts incorporate modern technology with brain activity to obtain digital re-creations of thoughts, visual experiences or dreams.

The study was led by Jack Gallant, neuroscientists at the University of California, Berkeley, and published on March in the journal Nature. The technique involves brain scanning using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which monitors blood flow patterns within the brain and associates them with images shown to the subjects.

It’s not the best of this method so far, but it’s a step forward towards understanding and predicting brain activity. The experiment submitted two of Gallant’s team members, Kendrick Kay and Thomas Naselaris, to a series of 1,750 different pictures. Afterwards, the team of scientists selected 120 pictures the two hadn’t seen before and tried to predict which one they will be looking at by using brain scanning.

The predictions proved accurate in 72 percent of the time with one of the subjects, and 92 percent for the other subject. It’s a new accomplishment in accurately decoding brain activity, but scientists are just at the beginning of the road. The challenge ahead now is to decode brain responses from a whole new range of images, without knowing them first however.

“That is in principle a much harder problem,” said Gallant. You’d need a very good model of the brain, a better measure of brain activity than fMRI, and a better understanding of how the brain processes things like shapes and colours seen in complex everyday images, the report said. “And we don’t really have any of those three things at this time.”

The extension of future experiments could prove useful in all kinds of applications, but there is still a long way to go. For the time being, it is about “reading” visual activity, in the future, could be about reconstructing thoughts and dreams.

Jobs Says Flash Video Not Suitable for iPhone



On the day we finally get the iPhone SDK comes news that may put something of a dampener on it (unless Steve has a "One more thing" tucked up his sleeve): Adobe Flash isn't good enough for the iPhone.

In comments made at Apple's recent shareholder meeting, CEO Steve Jobs said that the iPhone doesn't support Flash because it runs too slowly on the device to be useful. The iPhone's lack of Flash has been one of the major complaints levied against it. He also said we won't see iPhone apps until "summer."

Adobe's Flash Player is used to play videos and other content on the Internet. Users have complained that the iPhone's lack of Flash support makes the browsing experience less rich than it should be. According to Jobs, Flash Lite doesn't go far enough, but the full-fledged Flash Player, which is designed to run on laptops, performs sluggishly on the iPhone. He said, "There's this missing product in the middle." He didn't go so far as to say that Adobe was working on such a product for the iPhone or any other product, and neither did Adobe.

In an Internet post last month, Ryan Stewart, Adobe's chief spokesman for its Internet-based applications, said, "No one aside from [Apple Chief Executive] Steve Jobs has any idea if or when it's coming. Everyone I talk to doesn't know anything."

Apple is introducing the road map for its iPhone SDK at an event tomorrow. Developers were likely hoping to find ways to support Flash on their own through the SDK. After Jobs' comments, that seems less likely. At the shareholders meeting, Jobs said that users will "see a lot of apps out there this summer." This lends more credence to the belief that the actual SDK will be not be made available tomorrow, but some time in the future. If Jobs believes that applications for the iPhone won't be available until this summer, that means developers are going to continue to be frustrated for a while.

That also means that the iPhone hacking community is going to continue to be busy innovating on the sly. Many believe that Apple will maintain rigid control over how iPhone apps are developed, approved, and distributed, with Apple taking a cut. Hackers probably will provide more useful apps in a shorter time frame, as is already evidenced by the services made available to unlocked iPhones.

more...

Jobs Says "Not Likely" to Flash on the iPhone
Flash, in its current state, is not a good fit for the iPhone
first displayed, people have been wondering if there was going to be any kind of Flash support for the iPhone. Initially, I think the response from Jobs was "maybe", but I took that as a "nope." There are hundreds of reasons why Flash doesn't make sense on the iPhone, but I'll run through a couple of my own opinions as to why Flash, in its current state, is not a good fit for the iPhone.


File System. The Flash Plugin simply assumes the presence of a file system to which it has (limited, isolated, and secure) access. The iPhone file system is not open. Unlike Windows Mobile, you can't pop open an explorer window and browse around the contents of your phone.


Processing Power. The iPhone has a processor that is designed to be optimized for limited power consumption. The version of OS X that runs on the iPhone is designed to maximize battery life, as is Safari. Flash assumes it can suck whatever resources from the computer it wants. Even if every single Flash developer agreed to produce low-resource-consuming Flash files, how could the runtime be tuned to work in this environment in a way that is both practical and profitable? (you'll see that theme as I continue...)


Alternate UI paradigm. Flash is not optimized for touch interfaces. In fact, Flash has no idea what a touch interface is at all. It responds to clicks and mouseovers, and the iPhone has no concept of a mouseover. Any existing Flash sites or mini-apps would have to somehow compensate for that. If you've been to enough Flash-ridden sites, you'll know that there are tons of SWFs that rely heavily on mouseover and would simply be unusable on an iPhone.


Zooming and Pixel Depth. The iPhone is an extremely high resolution display, even though it is a small form factor. I think it has 3 times the pixel density of the average monitor. I don't even want to know what kind of headaches that would cause the developers trying to port the flash runtime to the phone. Surely a port could be made, but would it be practical or profiterable for either Apple or Adobe to do it?


Form Factor. I can't even count the number of Flash portions of web sites that do not scale when the page scales. Flash is fantastically easy in fixed-width mode, and when people do navigation bars, rollover strips, or some of the other extremely ubiquitous use cases for Flash, they do them in fixed width scale! Basically what you'd be looking at is any page with any of this non-scaling flash content on it would completely obliterate what is currently the most smooth and seamless mobile browsing experience available. It would prevent mobile Safari from being able to scale and zoom to other portions of the page not containing Flash. No port of the Flash runtime would prevent iPhone users from being assaulted by this experience. Any iPhone user who hit a page like this would flee in terror, just like people do now with other crappy mobile browsing experiences. Do you think Apple wants to give their users a crappy experience?


Security and Sandboxing. Flash can do things that JavaScript cannot. Flash can also do things that you simply cannot do on a mobile phone with a locked file system. Even if a port were possible and/or completed, if you thought the complaints about the Vista UAC were bad... just imagine what Apple fanatics would do if constantly being beaten over the head with security and sandboxing prompts and dialogs. "This page is trying to do something the iPhone doesn't support" ... WTF??! Steve Jobs is right in assuming people would rather see the "blue cube" of the missing Flash plugin than have to tap away a security violation dialog. At least with the blue cube, the important content of the page is still accessible.


The Canvas. I don't know about you, but I think this little HTML tag kicks ass. Using a little JavaScript and the Canvas tag, you can draw and animate to your heart's content.


Video. The iPhone uses H.264, which is, as far as I know, a more widely used video standard than Flash.
So, to sum things up:

If Apple were to create a Flash port for the iPhone, the nature of the exiting world of Flash applications would make the user experience terrible, and not up to Apple's standards. If Adobe were to create a flash port for the iPhone, the user experience would be equally crappy, and equally below Adobe's high standards for quality. Both efforts would require a large financial investment to produce something that most people would think sucked anyway, so its solid business that neither of them are very interested in creating the port.

I say leave Flash off the phone. The combination of the forthcoming SDK and the abilities granted to web developers by virtue of CSS3, WebKit extensions to CSS, Safari's advanced HTML support (including the Canvas tag!) all add up to a rich development environment that is wanting for very little and I don't think anybody who actually uses an iPhone on a daily basis really misses having Flash there... I know I don't.

Find here

Home II Large Hadron Cillider News