|
|
Post by oaths on Apr 10, 2016 13:18:00 GMT -5
Feel free to disregard this post. If you are interested, give some of these articles a read through. I am kind of vomiting the list of things I will be reviewing over the next few days to get a firmer grasp on this topic. Discussions are always welcome. Targeting accuracy and efficiency of a multichannel TMS array: A simulation study Aapo Nummenmaa, Tommi Raij, Matti Hämäläinen, Yoshi Okada. Poster Session: Thursday, June 18th 2015 ww4.aievolution.com/hbm1501/index.cfm?do=abs.viewAbs&abs=3593Archived 4/10/2016Targeting functional networks with TMS Alexander Opitz, Michael Fox, Cameron Craddock, Stan Colcombe, Michael Milham. Poster Session: Wednesday, June 17th 2015 ww4.aievolution.com/hbm1501/index.cfm?do=abs.viewAbs&abs=4025Archived 4/10/2016Is sham cTBS real cTBS? The effect on EEG dynamics Alexander Opitz, Wynn Legon, Jerel Mueller, Aaron Barbour, Walter Paulus, William J. Tyler. Publication journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01043/fullEffects of coil orientation on the elctric field induced by TMS over the hand motor area Ilkka Laakso, Akimasa Hirata, Yoshikazu Ugawa. Publication iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/59/1/203Investigating the cortical regions involved in MEP modulation in tDCS Ricardo Salvador, Cornelia Wenger, Pedro C. Miranda Publication journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fncel.2015.00405/full |
|
elmeunick9
Adept
My unfinished/failed VR force-traking suit: https://gitlab.com/elmeunick9/Siyon/
Posts: 8 
|
Post by elmeunick9 on Apr 10, 2016 18:05:20 GMT -5
I personally think that targeting the brain directly is to no use for VR (it has other interesting uses tough). For virtual reality you don't want to implant memories nor make any modifications on the signals being transmitted inside the brain, instead you just want to fake the signals the brain receives (and capture the ones it sends). Maybe we could use TMS on the spinal cord instead (I don't know if that is feasible), but still I think that a more direct method would be better.
|
|
|
|
Post by oaths on Apr 11, 2016 21:15:07 GMT -5
Their is currently no surrogate for scaling up and learning more about TMS as far as tricking our senses at the neural level goes. Other technologies have blatant flaws in either the ways they are implemented, their scope of interactions, or the physics that drive them.
My point, is that it may be possible to generate increasingly complex diode arrays that generate magnetic fields. By using orthogonal or polar diodes to more precisely drive a single point, you may be able to drastically increase the precision of the foci.
As you pointed out, targeting the spinal cord is likely to be required to simulate the feeling of touch... But the spinal cord itself will not permit you to interact with any of the other senses.
Any solution is far off - and maybe magnetic fields won't even be the way to go, but it appears to be the best strategy at our disposal as of now.
One final thought - just how are our perceptions encoded at the neuronal level...? Could we augment perception through electronic manipulation alone? Or do we have to directly manipulate co-factors, metal ions, and neurotransmitters too? Their are a lot of research projects working to tackle these very problems, and when I am not working on my thesis work, I am always reading work from the blue brain project or various BCI labs from around the world. It is frustrating when your so obsessed with something that you lie awake at night thinking about it. Where are the images stored in my brain as I write this message? Where am I interpreting the continues hum generated by my fume hood as it pumps air through the lab?
|
|
elmeunick9
Adept
My unfinished/failed VR force-traking suit: https://gitlab.com/elmeunick9/Siyon/
Posts: 8
|
Post by elmeunick9 on Apr 13, 2016 12:59:24 GMT -5
Not only to stimulate the feeling of touch but also to capture and intercept the signals going to the muscles (Paralyze & Tracking). Some of the other senses can be faked to an acceptable degree right now (oculus rift for sight, headphones for hearing), specially headphones I think do a very good job on it, however there is no way to capture (with precision) the force (not the movement) you're trying to do and at the same time paralyze the body.
So basically what I'm saying is that we don't need to know how the brain works for a full-immersion VR, it's enough with sending fake signals to it (which is what we need to know) in a natural way (so through the nerves, not directly). That's why I don't think TMS will be of any help for VR. I agree tough that it may be useful in other areas.
If the brain were software, TMS would be like trying to interface with it modifying the data on memory instead of using its API. Not impossible but a lot harder.
|
|
|
|
Post by oaths on Apr 14, 2016 20:29:47 GMT -5
We frequently observe "nodal" phenomena in biological systems. It is very possible that the nervous system that induces dream states and sleep paralysis are highly related. Determining that neural pathway could in theory give us a way to induce sleep paralysis without inducing dream states. I won't disagree with visual displays and headphones being vastly superior to CBI applications in terms of feasibility and application. Both of those are simply examples of things we would like to obtain from a field that is still largely ethereal. But I fail to understand what you are inferring with the last sentence. What you state, is that without higher order BCI's, we cannot capture brain signal states that correspond to movement, or physical exertion. And I agree with that statement. Influence the optical, auditory, olfactory, and cranial nerves directly with TMS given their bundled nature would be exceedingly difficult to say the least..But sight and sound are easily controlled as you have pointed out. I don't know if we can call the brain software or not, but your metaphor is not lost on me... Though I did have to look up what API stands for..  The point I am trying to make, is that I don't disagree with you on any of your points. But the neural research is going to continue, and at this time specific methods do stand out. We have not yet answered enough questions to know what is, or isn't possible. Although we are going to see some pretty sick non-immobilizing platforms evolve in the next few years. Their success and intrigue will fuel people's interest in neural research. |
|
|
|
Post by oaths on Apr 14, 2016 20:30:06 GMT -5
Lol, I can't use the quote feature at all. XD
|
|
|
|
Post by oaths on Apr 14, 2016 20:34:43 GMT -5
elmeunick9 I think the most powerful thing we can do now, is learn how to access the brains API... But their are full immersion strategies available that won't require it.
|
|
elmeunick9
Adept
My unfinished/failed VR force-traking suit: https://gitlab.com/elmeunick9/Siyon/
Posts: 8
|
Post by elmeunick9 on Apr 15, 2016 6:47:16 GMT -5
I don't know if it's possible, but in order for VR to work you should be full conscious while paralyzed (not only not dreaming, but not even sleeping), the ideally would be some kind of quadraplegia switch. --- OFF TOPIC WARNING ---- About dreams I have a theory that maybe you could answer from a neuroscientist point of view. The thing is that when I remember a dream I'm already awake (makes sense), often a considerably amount of time passes from one event to the other (From 5 seconds or less to more than 2 hours). Also my dreams always seem to be in some way related to what I was thinking the moment I remember them, so maybe dreams aren't remembered when you're awake, but made from your current thoughts plus residual memories that you kept from your sleep (reason why the time doesn't match and it seems like you're remembering something). More precisely I think that when you wake up, depending on how well was your sleep, you may have more or less residual memories from it (memories that during your sleep phases you where manipulating). So at some point when you're awake the brain finds those memories (which aren't related to each other, they can be of completely different events) and tries to make sense of them (where they come from, when that happened, and so one), but it can't because the residual memories are incomplete, so the brain just puts them all together (using current thoughts if necessary) and tries to make sense of the whole thing, once finally you have a succession of events it may apparently make sense, but you soon realize that what you're remembering can't have happened in real life (so you realize it's a dream). In some cases it may be easier than others to realize if something is a dream, it may even happen that you don't realize it was a dream and from that day on you live with a fake memory (though generally that should be a rare case). --- ON TOPIC AGAIN ---- Well not only higher order but also (at last for the first experiments in VR) more intrusive. It's a lot harder to interfere with the nerves when you try to do it without an implant. Here however I'm specifically talking about the nerves on the spinal cord. Though maybe an implant such as this could also work, I think that done in the spinal cord (probably a harder surgery) would work better. Of course in the case of the guy from the video he may be injured too hight to actually do that kind of surgery (besides being probably more risky). From that new I also wonder why should they need a powerful computer, either they are using unnecessary bloated software or some AI but this kind of process shouldn't be that expensive. Well, probably at this stage is pointless to care for optimization. |
|
The point I am trying to make, is that I don't disagree with you on any of your points. But the neural research is going to continue, and at this time specific methods do stand out. We have not yet answered enough questions to know what is, or isn't possible. Although we are going to see some pretty sick non-immobilizing platforms evolve in the next few years. Their success and intrigue will fuel people's interest in neural research.