TextSearch

We can only transmit basic signals between brains, but we should consider the ethics before moving on to complex thoughts

With new technology, mind control is no longer science-fiction Ad Massive Logo MassiveScience Close Close Stories Articles Lab Notes Videos Reports Massive en español Noticias de ciencia COVID-19 The facts about COVID-19, straight from scientists Butt Month The science of butts, poop, and intestines Surviving the Anthropocene Adapting to endure humanity’s impact on the world Science Heroes Women in STEM you may not have heard of Mind Control Dispatches from the frontiers of neuroscience Food for Thought Making agriculture safe, healthy, and sustainable Breakthroughs Interviews with cutting-edge scientists Follow Email Subscribe Facebook Facebook Instagram Instagram Twitter Twitter Flipboard Flipboard RSS RSS Feed Write for us Join our training program Code of Conduct Resources Discussion Forum Support our mission Shop Tarot Deck Coloring Books Posters & Prints Stickers Reports About Our Story What We Offer Contact Us Terms of Service Privacy Policy Search Close Close User Account Sign up Sign in Close Close User Account Profile Subscriptions Downloads Sign out Massive MassiveScience Menu Menu Search User Account With new technology, mind control is no longer science-fiction We can only transmit basic signals between brains, but we should consider the ethics before moving on to complex thoughts Lily Toomey Neuroscience Curtin University October 10, 2018 Share Facebook Share Twitter Tweet Flipboard Flip Email Email Read Later Pocket Pocket Instapaper Instapaper Ad Reading minds seems to be a common part of the science-fiction canon—a genre much loved by actual scientists. But even as someone who turned their love of Kurt Vonnegut, John Wyndham and H.G. Wells into a career as a neuroscientist, I hadn’t considered telepathy a serious avenue for research—until recently. Lately, there’s been a lot of hype in the neuroscience world about a technology called “brain-to-computer interfaces,” which are electric networks which can send a person’s brain signals to a computer. This computer can then be taught to read these signals, and use them to perform a variety of tasks. For example, just last year this sort of device was used to record the movement signals in the brain of disabled stroke patients, sending an electrical current to an upper body exoskeleton that controlled the person’s limbs —allowing these patients to regain control over their hands and arms. But another promising kind of interface that so far has received less attention is the brain-to-brain interface, or BBI. A brain-to-brain interface records the signals in one person’s brain, and then sends these signals through a computer in order to transmit them into the brain of another person. This process allows the second person to “read” the mind of the first or, in other words, have their brain fire in a similar pattern to the original person.  Back in 2013, the first study in which two brains were successfully joined to collaborate and complete a task was published in Scientific Reports. First, Miguel Pais-Vieira and his colleagues trained rats to perform a basic task: the animals were trained to press one of two levers, with the correct lever signalled with a light. The correct choice gave them access to water. Once the rats could successfully complete this task four out of five times, they were assigned as either the encoder—the one sending signals—or the decoder, the one receiving them. Encoder rats were surgically implanted with recording wires that measured activity in the motor areas of their brain, while decoder rats were implanted with stimulating wires in the same area. Each one was kept in a separate container, and only the encoder rats were shown the light signal on the levers. As the encoder rats chose a lever, neurons in their brain started firing. The BBI recorded this activity, transformed it, and used it to stimulate an equivalent pattern into the brain of the decoder rat. The decoder rat had to correctly press a lever based on this stimulation. (Water was only given if both animals successfully pushed the right lever.) The researchers found that both rats pushed the correct lever 62 percent of the time, or more than chance probability.  Within a year, applications for this kind of device ballooned. In November of 2014, the first real-time BBI for humans was developed by Rajesh Rao and colleagues at the University of Washington. Unlike the poor rats, the human device was non-invasive, meaning surgery wasn’t required. This device transferred the movement signals from the encoder straight to the motor area of the brain of the decoder, without using a computer. In the study, Rao and his team used an electroencephalography (EEG), placing recording wires on the scalp of the encoding person. Then the scientists used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) on the decoding person’s brain, sending little magnetic pulses through their skull to activate a specific region of their brain. This caused the second person to take the action that the first person meant to—for example, to press a button.  The decoder wasn’t consciously aware of the signal they received… Instead, their hand simply moved when stimulated, as though a puppeteer was controlling their limbs. But, cool as this sounds, there was a major limitation to the study. The decoder wasn’t consciously aware of the signal they received. They weren’t able to actively process the incoming neural information—meaning only movement was transferred, not thoughts. Instead, their hand simply moved when stimulated, as though a puppeteer was controlling their limbs. Fortunately, a study using BBIs to transfer information between people swiftly followed. The same researchers at The University of Washington then designed a game with pairs of participants, similar to 20 Questions. In the game, the encoder was given an object that the decoder wasn’t familiar with. The goal was for the decoder to successfully guess the object through a series of yes or no questions. But unlike in 20 Questions, the encoder responded by looking LED flashing lights, one signifying yes and the other no. The visual response generated in the encoder’s brain was transmitted to the visual areas of the brain of the decoder. To do so, the encoders had to wear an electroencephalography cap, or EEG cap, which uses electrodes on the scalp to detect brain activity. Meanwhile, the decoders had a transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS apparatus, positioned above their corresponding brain area. The TMS creates small changes in the magnetic field, which caused neuron firing similar to that in the encoder participants. In other words, if the encoder said yes, the decoder simply saw a flash of light. The decoders were successfully able to guess the object in 72 percent of the games, compared to an 18 percent success rate without the BBI. This suggests a lot of promise for accurately transmitting information between two people. The brilliant aspect of this study was that by generating the transmitted signal in the visual areas of the brain, the decoding person was consciously aware of the information given to them. This also meant that the decoder had to actively participate, by clicking either a yes or no button. Furthermore, this was the largest BBI study, and also the first to include female participants. We still can’t transmit complex ideas between people, mainly because we still don’t know how the brain encodes complex ideas. There is obviously still a long way to go before we’ll know what BBI may be capable of. So far, we still can’t transmit complex ideas between people, mainly because we still don’t know how the brain encodes complex ideas. Weird as it may sound, science still can’t explain consciousness, or the particular brain cells and their firing patterns that make up each individual thought. This is what’s limiting how far we can push this technology. However, already this area of research is raising ethical questions. We should start having conversations now about the implications of these devices—before they get to the point where we can alter complex thoughts. We need to start thinking, for example, about how we can design this technology to prevent unwanted thoughts being sent directly into our heads. That said, these devices clearly have the potential to revolutionize the way we communicate and learn. There’s a mind-boggling number of possible applications—just imagine projecting ideas in an educational environment, directly sharing memories with others, replacing the need for phones or the Internet altogether, or even, in the more near-term, using it to teach people new motor skills during rehabilitation. So far, BBIs are just a really exciting but extremely rudimentary development in neurotechnology. But with Elon Musk’s launch of a new company, Neuralink, just last year, with the goal of investigating and developing these types of devices, who knows what the future might hold? More stories like this Yeast could soon make psilocybin cheaper than their magic mushroom cousins can Read now → New work could even lead to psychedelic intermediates not previously available in large quantities Sarah Laframboise, University of Ottawa September 1, 2020 Your brain isn’t the same in virtual reality as it is in the real world Read now → Dori Grijseels, University of Sussex February 9, 2020 Lead poisoning hits low-income children harder than their affluent neighbors Read now → Claudia López Lloreda, University of Pennsylvania January 13, 2020 Do animals hear music? “The Evolving Animal Orchestra” follows a decade on the beat Read now → Jennifer Tsang, Microbiology April 3, 2019 Do dogs really, truly understand what we tell them? Read now → Lauren Mackenzie Reynolds, McGill University July 2, 2018 Caffeine keeps your body fat warm, on top of lighting up your brain Read now → Pamela Hirschberg, Rutgers University November 23, 2021 Cuttlefish can learn with the brains they keep in their arms Read now → Julia A Licholai, Brown University November 12, 2021 Some people just don’t age, at least not like most Read now → Kelly Cotton, City University of New York October 29, 2021 Students can learn with their mouths as well as with their eyes and hands Read now → Alyssa Paparella, Baylor College of Medicine October 12, 2021 Remembering Ben Barres, the trailblazing trans neuroscientist and mentor, on his birthday Read now → The legacy of the researcher, teacher, and gender equality advocate lives on Burcin Ikiz, Neuroscience September 13, 2021 A new molecule and an under-appreciated neuron have been implicated in Parkinson’s disease Read now → Julia A Licholai, Brown University August 29, 2021 The secret code of sea shells Read now → Harini Chakravarthy, Biochemistry April 8, 2019 International collaboration is the best way to understand the complexities of the brain Read now → Maya Emmons-Bell, UC Berkeley October 10, 2017 Mice don’t get Alzheimer’s, so why test Alzheimer’s drugs on them? Read now → Peter Weinberg, Biology September 17, 2021 Ambitious gene editing needs an ambitious pair of scissors Read now → Alyssa Shepard, The Scripps Research Institute May 27, 2021 Mating plugs and other weird butterfly sex habits Read now → Lauren J. Young February 2, 2021 How do geese know how to fly south for the winter? Read now → Tom Langen, Clarkson University December 14, 2020 A skin-eating fungus from Europe could decimate Appalachia’s salamanders Read now → Debra Miller, University of Tennessee Matt Gray, University of Tennessee March 12, 2021 We think you’ll like this You know it! Keep your mind sharp with the smartest science around. Get new stories about the science behind brains and mental health delivered right to you. ✕ Dismiss ✕ Not Interested ✓ Already Subscribed Ad Massive Logo MassiveScience We’re a community of scientists telling fascinating, true stories about the science that’s happening now. Facebook Facebook Instagram Instagram Twitter Twitter RSS RSS Feed © 2017 – 2020 Massive Science Inc.