4 ms·
OK, I think this is a little misleading at a glance. From my read they didn't show a video to the subject then create images from the brainwaves. Instead they
by parallel 15y ago
OK, I think this is a little misleading at a glance. From my read they didn't show a video to the subject then create images from the brainwaves. Instead they showed videos to subjects, recorded the response. This allowed them to greate a mapping of response to video. You then show videos later, read the response then look up the video.
The article states; "The reconstructed videos are blurry because they layer all the YouTube clips that matched the subject's brain activity pattern."
They could have just shown the best match, this would not have been a cool blurry image that is very easy to misinterpret as being generated from the brainwaves directly. More than a little slippery.
- allending 15y ago"The reconstruction was obtained using only each subject's brain activity and a library of 18 million seconds of random YouTube video that did not include the movies used as stimuli." Not totally scifi awesome, but still pretty cool and I think it is a valid approach. Sounds like the bigger the library of clips mapped to brain activity, the more the technique converges to a desirable result.
- glenstein 15y agoAn average image leaves you with the abstract features common to all the matches, which tells you far more about what the brain-traffic is up to than showing a single match. And being able to look at that is astonishing in its own right. It's easy for laypeople to misinterpret things they don't fully understand, but I think they can be disabused of misunderstanding by careful explanation. And we can get from here to there without invoking slipperiness.