|
|
|
|
|
by willwade
815 days ago
|
|
Some clarity for ppl.
- Other techniques would likely work for this patient. Eyegaze technology is pretty readily available. He has proximity switches for driving his chair and lets not forget voice control. So.. what does BCIe offer significantly? I think this is the BIG problem BCI has. The gains are not enough for a lot of people compared to what the AT sector can already offer. Please remember this. This guy could use eyegaze or voice control on pretty regular hardware. And no surgery needed.. - These types of BCI are effectively an array of switches. You typically map a motor thought eg. "Move your arm up" => Moving the cursor up. This maybe how then you control a game such as chess if it has keyboard shortcuts. Eye movement could be done in the same way but there are easier ways. Interestingly to measure these motor commands you dont really need intracortical BCI. You can do it with surface EEG. Sticking it inside your head - closer to centres where you can measure intentional thought makes the signal cleaner and more reliable - The big breakthroughs is really making this intracortical stuff safer and long term. Its getting there. But this isnt it The big wins out there - are in speech BCI. Thats hardcore. Even the two main studies doing this - each of the participants requires a LOT of training time to make a Machine model work efficiently. |
|
Apple has done great stuff with eye tracking on Vision Pro, but it required completely rewriting the UI for literally everything. Not something we have the luxury of doing for accessibility for quadriplegics.
Source: built an eye tracker and eye-controlled UI at a startup and got acquired by Google