|
|
|
|
|
|
by 9oliYQjP
1524 days ago
|
|
|
Does it say if the researchers knew his family members' names in advance? Wouldn't the "a ha!" moment be when the patient shares something that the researchers couldn't possibly find out on their own and that wouldn't be interpreted via his family's help? None of that appeared to happen here. Having said that, I've just skimmed the Nature article. But what stands out is that they had 86 days of unsuccessful communication before they changed strategies and then all of a sudden started reporting success. I really hope this works but we should remain skeptical for the possibility of abuse here. Other commenters in this thread have reported that the researchers have committed misconduct in their brain research. The only thing I fear more than being in the discussed patient's situation is being in their situation and having my thoughts incorrectly interpreted at best or outright manipulated at worst. |
|
|
For example:
Make one person roll a dice and tell the number to the patient ensuring that nobody else can hear it. Kill the person that roll the dice to ensure the result is secret. Make another person read the BCI and write down the result. Repeat this 18 times and then look at the video and compare the dice and the BCI. It's a success if they guessed correctly at least 9 times. The expected number of correct answers is 3, and the probability to guess 9 randomly is only 0.1%.
If they do this only once, live streaming the experiment it is enough for me, but perhaps it's better to have a lower probability for a random guess. Also, I like that the "success" threshold is one half of the experiments. It's easy to explain, not too much in case it's not perfect, and less than a half is not impressive.