[cool_shit]

I don't see why this research couldn't be applied to empirical data from an arbitrary system of coupled oscillators.

I am interested in EEG and fNIRs, but there are drawbacks. Naively, people will try and study this data without first doing a necessary back-of-the-napkin.

EEG and fNIRs have hard physical limitations. EEG is limited to pick up only large-scale EM field activity, where the higher resolution perturbations and effects are averaged out. This is because of an increased measurement distance and noise that is acquired through the skull and other intermediary tissue. This is unacceptable since the current scientific consensus is high frequency phase and activity is fairly important for information coding.

On the bright side, a lot of information might also be encoded in larger scale synchronized oscillation that happens in the brain (the stuff that EEG picks up on). This space is obviously lower in dimension.

The only work-around for this hard information limit is to explore invasive BCI technology (e.g. tetrodes connected to your neurons).

Relatively speaking, this isn't difficult for scientific laboratory research because:

  1. We don't care about invasive surgery on rats.

  2. We don't care how comfortable rats are.

  3. We don't care how mobile rats are.

On the other hand, for commercial purposes, it is not feasible to stick a wired-tetrode array into a human brain yet. We can't afford to lose a human. Engineering on the invasive BCI frontier is incredibly primitive right now.