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

Le 2011/03/14 04:59, Invisible a écrit :
> 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
It DOES exist now! Some use IR laser, some use normal, ambient light.
> you have to have electrodes implanted into the skin around your eye to
> measure muscle activity, or something equally surgical.
Not anymore.
>
> Bummer.

Those are early and crude technology dating back to the infancy of eye 
tracking.

Now, you have eye tracking imbeded into pilot's helmets used for target 
selection. About 1 arc minute acuracy and 0.1~0.2 second response time. 
Takes the eye and head position into acount. Actualy deployed for well 
over 10 years... Standard isue in F16 and F18 fighters.

You also have "civilian" versions that are somewhat slower and much less 
acurate. Some of those don't need to be worn, but are placed in front of 
you, like on top of your monitor and don't require you to stay 
stationary: it locates your head, pinpoints your eyes and find where 
they are looking. Still expensive.
Acuracy of about 1~2°, response time from 0.5 to 2 seconds.




Alain

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 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). 

Sometimes you have to look at more than one. You want a COTS eye tracker, 
google for COTS eye tracking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmwk4ItOwOk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thGrRNKVhXA

I also saw one that you sit in a chair an it basically uses little 
telescopes to watch your eyes from the other side of the room.

Now what would be cool is what is still apparently research papers, which is 
doing this with a web cam.

Or not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgmONlusBV8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jso9fpi2IQ



-- 
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