HealthDay News — Researchers have been making progress in developing mind-controlled robotic limbs, with one patient's case reported in an issue of Science.
The patient has two tiny chips implanted in the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), which controls the intention to move. That's in contrast to the handful of other paralyzed individuals who've been given similar implants. But in those cases, the chips have been placed in the brain's motor cortex, which is involved in the direct execution of movement. It's a key distinction, explained senior researcher Richard Andersen, PhD, a professor of neuroscience at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.
Signals sent from the brain's motor cortex are involved in the details of movement — like "lift the arm" and "extend the arm." Signals from the PPC are "higher level," and related to overall goals, such as "I want to pick up that cup." So devices implanted in the PPC could make it easier for people to control a robotic arm with their thoughts, and make those movements more fluid and natural, Andersen toldHealthDay. He said two additional patients have since had chips implanted in the PPC, and a few patients at other research centers have had similar devices implanted.
For now, the robotic arms are confined to the lab setting. After surgery, patients are left with terminals protruding from the skull that are used to connect the implanted chips to a computer system that decodes the signals being sent from the brain — such as, "I want to pick up that cup." That message sparks the robotic arm to move. For the approach to work in real life, the technology will have to go wireless, Andrew Pruszynski, PhD, the author of an editorial published with the study, and an assistant professor at Western University in London, Canada, told HealthDay.
Aflalo T et al. Science. 2015; doi:10.1126/science.aaa5417.
The Apple Watch heralds a brave new world of digital living
“The Watch is here” touts Apple’s slogan for its wearable computer, implying that the one and only time-piece that really matters has arrived. So much for the Rolex Cosmograph and Seiko Astron when you can buy a stylish digital Apple Watch Sport, or even Apple Watch Edition crafted with 18-karat gold.
If we believe the hype, one in four Australians plan to buy a wearable device by the end of the year.
Of its many features and functions, the Apple Watch is a music player, fitness tracker, communications device, payment token and digital key. And it also tells the time. We were surprised that no one claimed that it will also help look after our kids. But not for long. There’s an app for that. So is there anything this device cannot do?
Who would have thought that the power of an internet-enabled laptop computer, mobile phone, iPod, fitness tracker, bank card and set of keys could be neatly packaged and strapped around your wrist?
And unlike other futuristic visions of hand-held communicators, the Apple Watch won’t leave you stranded in perilous situations because it’s dropped, stolen or falls out of range because it’s literally always connected to you.
This raises a key question: how will we change our behaviour based on the fact that we are walking around with a fully-fledged computer – one that sits in contact with our bodies and communicates wirelessly with machines around us without us being explicitly aware of it?
According to the marketing spiel, we’ll have a lot more convenience at our fingertips. But, in actuality, we may find ourselves reaching for the mute button, longing to be disconnected, and fed up with all the notifications interrupting us. That’s when the novelty effect wears off.
We have probably witnessed people who cannot resist the urge of pulling out their mobile phone to interact with it at the most inopportune times or who pass their idle time simply looking down at a screen.
Most do not realise they are even interacting with their personal computer devices for hours each day. The repetitive behaviour has almost become a type of tic disorder which is neurobehavioural.
We get a message, it makes us feel important. We reply and get a buzz the very next time it happens again. It’s kind of like digital ping pong. And the game can get tangible fast. The main reason this repetitive behaviour remains hidden is that the majority of smartphone users suffer from this, so it looks normal.
You can see people in public spaces immersed in virtual places. These Wi-Fi-enabled mobile contraptions can also trigger a host of internet-related addictions, whether used for gaming, answering mail, web surfing, online transactions, social media, we-chatting, or taking a tonne of photographs.
According to experts, internet addiction disorder (IAD) can ruin lives by causing neurological complications, psychological disturbances and social problems. This is not to mention the potential for accidents when people are not looking where they are going or not paying attention to what they should be doing. In short, our need to be always online and connected has become a kind of cybernarcotic drug.
Little device, big data
Very few of us are immune to this yearning for “feedback loops”, so telecommunications operators and service providers pounce on this response. Information is money. And while we are busy interacting with our device, the companies are busy pocketing big money using our big data.
We are fast becoming a piece of digital information ourselves, sold to the highest bidder. And while we are busy rating ourselves and one another, the technology companies are not only using our ratings to learn more about our preferences and sentiments, but rating us as humans. In sociological terms it’s called social sorting, and in policing terms it’s called proactive profiling.
In days gone by, mobile communications could tell data collectors about our identity, location, even our condition. This is not new. But the real-time access and precision of this level of granularity of data gathered is something we should be all aware of as potentially impinging on our fundamental human rights.
Because they interface directly with the human body, watches have the capacity to tell a third party much more about you than just where you’ve been and where you are likely to be going. They can:
Determine time, distance, speed and altitude information derived from onboard sensors
Identify which apps you are using and how and why you are using them, minute by minute
Oversee the kinds of questions you are asking via search engines and text-based messages you are sending via social media.
All in all, private corporations can glean what you are thinking, the problems you are facing, and they know your personal context. What is disturbing is that they can divulge some of your innermost personal thoughts, intentions and actions, and have evidence for the reasons we do things.
Many people immersed in the virtual world are too busy to be thinking about the very act of inputting information onto the internet. People value a life of convenience over privacy too much to be genuinely concerned what information is being logged by a company and shared with hundreds of other potential partners and affiliates.
And consumers are often oblivious to the fact that, even if they are doing nothing at all, the smart device they are carrying or wearing is creating a type of digital DNA about their uniqueness.
Today, we are asking to be monitored and are partying in the panopticon. We have fallen in love with the idea of being told about ourselves and don’t discern that we have become like prison inmates who are being tracked with electronic bracelets.
By the time we wake up to this technological trajectory, it may be all too late. Our health insurance provider might be Samsung, our telecoms provider may be Google, and our unique lifetime identifier could come from Apple. At present, these are the archetypal tech providers. But tomorrow, who knows?
And by that time, we will likely be heralding in the age of uberveillance where we posit that cellphones and wristwatches are not enough, that the human-computer interface should go deeper, penetrating the skin and into the body.
“You can’t live without it”, may soon no longer be just figurative, but a reality.
Katina Michael is Associate Professor, School of Information Systems and Technology at University of Wollongong.
MG Michael is Honorary Associate Professor, School of Information Systems and Technology at University of Wollongong.
Thanks for the link KMA.
"Ladies and gents, put down your technology and have more sex.
That's the advice from a team of scientists who found people are becoming so enveloped by their phone and tablets that their love lives are being put on the back burner.
So if you are one of those reading this on your smartphone in bed, a glance across the sheets is likely to reveal your partner is engrossed in theirs too.
The researchers discovered 70 per cent of women said smartphones were interfering in their romantic relationship.
The study said technology and the screens that consume us are creating 'technoference' in couples."
Compare to declining birth rate in Japan in this article here. Could there be a link?
"Various reasons have been cited for the population decline, including:
The rising cost of childbirth and child-raising
The increasing number of women in the workforce
The later average age of marriage
The increasing number of unmarried people
Changes in the housing environment and in social customs."
Thank you K.D. for this interesting video. While I cannot make a comment on Naeslund's personal experience, some of the sources noted in this presentation are definitely important to the greater dialogue about humancentric microchipping.
"....Exploring humanity's ongoing evolution".
More information at https://sites.google.com/site/transjuniata/
"Remember, Google introduced Calico to the world with the bold ambition of "curing death." CEO Larry Page, Google Ventures head honcho Bill Maris, and futurist Ray Kurzweil, who Google hired as its director of engineering, have all expressed a deep interest in radical life extension and the Singularity. Up until today we haven't had a lot of detail about how Calico would pursue that goal. Page had told Time, "One of the things I thought was amazing is that if you solve cancer, you’d add about three years to people’s average life expectancy. We think of solving cancer as this huge thing that’ll totally change the world. But when you really take a step back and look at it, yeah, there are many, many tragic cases of cancer, and it’s very, very sad, but in the aggregate, it’s not as big an advance as you might think.""
"“Glass is very aware of the user,” he said. “There’s consequences to that, and things to consider and be careful about. But there’s also opportunity for a computer that’s very close to the person.”"
"Google has big hopes for its Glass head-mounted computer, chief among them a desire to make the unit smaller and more comfortable to wear.
Those were just a couple of the goals for a polished version of the device laid out Tuesday by Babak Parviz, the creator of Glass, who is also the director of Google’s “X” special projects division.
“Essentially we’d like to make the technology disappear,” he said during a conference on wearable technology in San Francisco.
“It should be non-intrusive” and as comfortable to wear as regular glasses or a wristwatch, he said.
Shrinking the unit would require advances in optics and photonics, he said. More computing power is also needed to make the device faster at answering people’s questions on the fly, Parviz said.
"...What do you get when you mix Google Glass and EEG? That’s the question that the people at Ottawa-based Personal Neuro are on their way to answering. Given the buzz around how Google Glass can be used in healthcare, and our longstanding interest in brain-computer interface, we took the opportunity to speak with Personal Neuro’s CEO, Steve Denison, about his company and what they’re building."
"...I definitely see a revolution in how some people will work..."
Here are the ten core questions I asked of Mark today:
1. Mark, I have you down in my G+ circles as a colleague. I note you have 290 followers. How have you managed to keep such a quiet profile amidst your incredible achievements?
2. You claim not to be a #glassexplorer or at least not part of that online community. What do you call your developments then with #glass or at least with the wider sub-sets of alternative providers?
3. I met with you at ISMAR13 in Adelaide, South Australia. Shortly after that event another occurred in the same university with Professor Andrew Goldsmith, Cybercrimes. What do you see as the nexus between augmented reality (AR) and that of unmanned aerial systems? (UAS)
4. Christchurch is a lovely part of the world. Given you've just returned from Israel what do you consider to be the hotbeds of technology development in the world at present?
5. What does the term privacy mean to you?
6. In a world of big data, open data and the ripples still subsiding from the NSA and Snowden case what do you see as the greatest challenge for those who choose to route their quantified selves through servers in other countries (the cloud)? Is wearable technology responsible in some way for a shift in humanity?
7. The #glassroom - tell us who takes your C22: The Glass Class: Designing Wearable Interfaces and why ?
8. I take it your familiar with +Thad Starner - it appears 'empathetic' appears in both of your current discourses - can you tell us more about what you mean by using augmented reality to create empathetic experiences?
9. Is artificial intelligence (AI) set to leapfrog wearables as the revolution or do we have to wait and see #glass sweep across Australasia first?
10. Will #glass cause revolt, upturn apple-carts, challenge stereotypes, ubiquitously slip amongst the tools of the K-2 educator? What the key challenges that we face as humanity with #glass or is this set to be a US based phenomena only?
Body. Mind. Quantified.
"Accurate monitoring of brain and heart health is critical to overall wellnes. People around the world are seeking products that give them the insights they need for optimal mind and body performance. At NeuroSky, our biosensors provide an important foundation for thousands of products that meet this growing need."
"...Teachers and parents have voiced their concerns about privacy issue with Google Glass on campus. We need to have an open conversation, we need transparency in the intended use of Google Glass in educational spaces."
A short interview with Cecilia Abedie from San Francisco regarding Google Glass, technology and the broader impacts on society of wearable technology.