Since I heard of Stephen Hawking's condition I have been thinking about  
ways for him to "speak in real-time".

The first method I thought of is the following:
Using the same methods as speech recognition but by monitoring brainwaves  
(cognitive science).
It might be possible to create a hat or a wig with electrodes connected to  
a computer that monitor brainwaves.
The computer would have to be taught each word by recording the patterns  
of the brainwaves while thinking the word. This would have to be done many  
times for each word to be plausible.

The second method builds on the first, but requires imagining the sound of  
what you want to say. If you use your imagination to imagine a specific  
sound there might just be a specific part of the brain that gives off  
brainwaves at those frequencies. For instance if you listen to the note  
middle C (261.626Hz) being played on a piano. Afterwards you use your  
imagination to imagine the same sound, would an eeg device be able to pick  
up that frequency? If this is works, it should be possible to identify the  
specific place in the brain that uses "sound imagination" and to use this  
directly (no computer required - only an amplifier!).

I don't know if any of this has been tried yet, but I just think it might  
work.


-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

"The spoon is not real"

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I don't know if any of this has been tried yet, but I just think it might  
> work.

  How about a simpler technology which is available today (and has been for
quite many years): Eye tracking.

  IIRC he currently has to write everything using only two buttons, which
is obviously quite slow. How about having a monitor with letters and an
eye tracker that senses which one he's looking at. The computer can then
highlight the letter and if it's what he wants, he presses a button. (Of
course all kinds of auto-completion and suggestions can be used as well.)

  Not completely real-time, but with practice it could almost be. Certainly
much faster than having to write everything by pressing two buttons.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:26:53 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I don't know if any of this has been tried yet, but I just think it  
>> might
>> work.
>
>   How about a simpler technology which is available today (and has been  
> for
> quite many years): Eye tracking.
>
>   IIRC he currently has to write everything using only two buttons, which
> is obviously quite slow. How about having a monitor with letters and an
> eye tracker that senses which one he's looking at. The computer can then
> highlight the letter and if it's what he wants, he presses a button. (Of
> course all kinds of auto-completion and suggestions can be used as well.)
>
>   Not completely real-time, but with practice it could almost be.  
> Certainly
> much faster than having to write everything by pressing two buttons.
>

I've always assumed that he was using eye-tracking, until I read up on his  
website. I wonder why he doesn't use that method.

Btw, if my second method could work, it might be very useful to composers  
and musicians. Imagine literally thinking up new sounds and actually  
hearing it through the speakers. Maybe even full compositions could be  
done this way!
It's a pity I don't have an EEG to experiment with ;)

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

"The spoon is not real"

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   How about a simpler technology which is available today (and has been for
> quite many years): Eye tracking.

You can combine these. Decades ago I saw a technique where the screen had a 
number of letters each of which were either highlighted in turn, or which 
were flashing at different rates.  Which ever one you were looking at would 
make EEG signals in your visual cortex that could be correlated to the 
letters.  So you just look at the blinking letters and it spells out what 
you gaze at.

It was pretty cool.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You can combine these. Decades ago I saw a technique where the screen had a 
> number of letters each of which were either highlighted in turn, or which 
> were flashing at different rates.  Which ever one you were looking at would 
> make EEG signals in your visual cortex that could be correlated to the 
> letters.  So you just look at the blinking letters and it spells out what 
> you gaze at.

  I think the eye tracking technology is safer because it doesn't give you
seizures... ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.03.2011 21:50, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:26:53 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> I don't know if any of this has been tried yet, but I just think it
>>> might
>>> work.
>>
>> How about a simpler technology which is available today (and has been for
>> quite many years): Eye tracking.

Both is already being developed. Current state of the art for 
brainwave-only approaches seem to be a few characters per minute, so at 
present they seem to be only really useful for patients having no 
motoric capabilities left (locked-in syndrome).

Post a reply to this message

On 11/03/2011 08:26 PM, Warp wrote:

>    How about a simpler technology which is available today (and has been for
> quite many years): Eye tracking.

I wonder if this is commercially available yet. (As in, I wonder if I 
can just go buy this stuff off the shelf somewhere.) It sounds like it 
could have interesting applications.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I wonder if this is commercially available yet. 

Life before google:

Him: "I just thought of something I'd like to know more about."

Her: "Oh, that's a shame."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

On 12/03/2011 05:04 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I wonder if this is commercially available yet.
>
> Life before google:
>
> Him: "I just thought of something I'd like to know more about."
>
> Her: "Oh, that's a shame."

First hit on Google is Wikipedia (obviously). According to Wikipedia, 
doing this kind of thing requires quite invasive equipment. For some 
reason I thought you could just wear a head-mounted device that uses IR 
lasers to detect which way your eyeball is pointing, but no. Apparently 
you have to have electrodes implanted into the skin around your eye to 
measure muscle activity, or something equally surgical.

Bummer.

Post a reply to this message

> First hit on Google is Wikipedia (obviously). According to Wikipedia,
> doing this kind of thing requires quite invasive equipment. For some
> reason I thought you could just wear a head-mounted device that uses IR
> lasers to detect which way your eyeball is pointing, but no.

Just use a webcam and suitable software.  Googling "eye tracking 
software" seems to indicate it would be possible to set up "at home". 
This type of technology has been in use for many years, particularly for 
telling which products "catch your eye" whilst walking around shops.

Post a reply to this message