(no subject)
Телепатическую соцсеть
"Это пока еще не Facebook, но это начало", - говорит один из авторов исследования.
По мнению ученых, если установить сервер, через который идет обработка сигнала "от мозга к мозгу" в "облаке", то в будущем возможно реализовать передачу мысленной информации в глобальном масштабе.
Results To measure the direct brain-to-brain communication capabilities of BrainNet, we asked each triad of participants to perform 16 trials of an iterative Tetris-like game. In each trial, one participant, designated as the Receiver, is in charge of deciding whether or not to rotate a block before it drops to fill a gap in a line at the bottom of the screen. Critically, the Receiver is prevented from seeing the bottom part of the screen and must rely on the counsel of the other two participants, designated as the Senders, who can see the screen in its entirety. These Senders are tasked with making the correct decision (rotate or not) based on the shape of the current block and the gap at the bottom, and informing the Receiver of the decision via the brain-to-brain interface. All members of the triad communicate their decisions through an EEG-based interface using steady state visually evoked potentials (SSVEPs) (see Methods). The Senders’ decisions are delivered to the Receiver through sequential TMS pulses to the occipital cortex, indicating a "yes" or "no" rotation decision (see Methods). Each trial is composed of two rounds: the first round is as described above; after the first round, the Senders are given the opportunity to examine the Receiver’s decision (shown on their screen as the block, now potentially rotated, mid-way through its fall) and have another chance to make new (possibly corrective) suggestions. A successful completion of a trial thus requires accurate communication between the Receiver and the Senders across these two rounds (See Figure 2). Further, to examine the issue of reliability of Senders, our software randomly choses one Sender to be less reliable by making the decision sent to the Receiver from that Sender incorrect ten out of sixteen trials. The order of trials requiring the block to be rotated and trials not requiring rotation was randomized, with the constraint that each half of the session contained 4 rotation and 4 non-rotation trials. Trials 8-12 for the first triad were excluded from all analysis due to a problem with the timestamp routine. We analyzed both the EEG and behavioral data from the subjects in the rest trials. Overall Performance The simplest measure of overall performance of the interface is the proportion of correct block rotations (or, equivalently, the proportion of number of lines cleared, or the proportion of the maximum theoretical total score, i.e. 16 points, achieved) for each of the five triads of participants. Figure 3 shows the results. The mean accuracy across all triads was 0.8125, which is significantly higher than the performance expected by chance (one-sample t-test, t(4) = 7.91, p = .001). Another important metric is the mean performance of participants in the SSVEP task since all three participants in each triad had to use this method to share information. In the task, subjects focused their attention on a 17 Hz flashing LED to indicate a "rotate" decision and a 15 Hz flashing LED for a "do not rotate" decision. Figure 4 shows that before and after the SSVEP task, the 17 Hz and 15 Hz average power values overlap, whereas during the task, the average power of the frequency corresponding to the correct answer in the trial is significantly larger than that of the frequency corresponding to the wrong answer (two-sided t-test; t(15) = 9.709, p < 0.0001 for "Rotate" signal; t(15) = 10.725, p < 0.0001 for "Do Not Rotate" signal).
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.08632.pdf