I read some books by Nicolelis' several years ago and it seemed back then that really useful BCI's still required invasive surgery because not only do you need to gather signals from a large number of neurons you also need to be able to distinguish them (and in EEG the signals are merged together and then further obscured by the effect of the skull etc.)
It will be interesting to see how much adoption Neuralink can get with the invasive approach.
Apart from BCI (which after dropping out a PhD in this field, I am extremely skeptical of), EEG is used to measure things like sleep-wake cycles, as well as predicting seizures in epilepsy patients (which, to be fair, is also not a hugely proven technology). I believe there were also some tests using it to measure level of attention in fighter pilots.
Basically a whole lot of bullshit papers in the field, coupled with negligible improvement and a belief that AI will somehow magically solve the problem of garbage data.
Thanks, I appreciate your reply! I've worked in AI in past jobs - though I don't have an academic background in it - and I would definitely agree with the issue of garbage data, as I suspect would many real-world practitioners.
> I believe there were also some tests using it to measure level of attention in fighter pilots.
I would not put much (any) stock into this. The army has put out RFPs for using magnetic tourniquets to induce clotting without external pressure. With magic. Just because the military pays someone to try something does not mean that it is not entirely bullshit.
I read some books by Nicolelis' several years ago and it seemed back then that really useful BCI's still required invasive surgery because not only do you need to gather signals from a large number of neurons you also need to be able to distinguish them (and in EEG the signals are merged together and then further obscured by the effect of the skull etc.)
It will be interesting to see how much adoption Neuralink can get with the invasive approach.