The world record for brain-computer interface for typing is 18 words per minute.
In contrast, eye tracking based typing averages around 20-25 words per minute.
This is a good lesson for why cool technology alone cannot win if there are cheaper, low tech alternatives available.
In contrast, eye tracking based typing averages around 20-25 words per minute.
This is a good lesson for why cool technology alone cannot win if there are cheaper, low tech alternatives available.
Source for the BCI typing record: the-scientist.com/news-opinion/b…
Typing demo for eye-tracking based systems.
The key question is: if non-invasive eye tracking gives people with disabilities a better data output rate, how can anyone get excited about state-of-the-art BCI research today?
Perhaps in future BCI may surpass traditional methods, but today it is inferior to simpler methods.
Perhaps in future BCI may surpass traditional methods, but today it is inferior to simpler methods.
This lack of competitiveness is ironically what will delay further progress because it's notoriously hard to convince patients to undergo brain surgery for benefits equivalent or similar to non-surgical methods.
And you need human experiments to do research in making this better
And you need human experiments to do research in making this better
I guess this is why progress in implanted brain interfaces is slow.
Matrix in real life isn't coming anytime soon.
Matrix in real life isn't coming anytime soon.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
