Gyro sensors.....lets go EEG

The MindWave uses controls of a very basic type, specifically a few different types of wave signals and maybe an eyebrow. This pretty much guarantees an experience not unlike the Mindflex, concentrating in specific ways to attempt to generate the appropriate signal, rather than simply imagining ones arm moving and seeing it controlled on screen. This inherently requires a training period as a user attempts to build a basic set of controls to use the capabilities. The magic of the Rift remains in the fact that someone with no training can pick it up and immediately begin using the full capabilities. When you have to stop to figure out how to do basic actions such as walking, it takes away from the experience. Harshly.

There's nothing stopping dedicated people from mixing the application of these two devices, and in fact, I encourage it. Experimentation and innovation are wonderful and amazing things. However, the technology isn't in any sort of appropriate for Rift state, and should not be coupled into the design of the Rift directly. Furrowing your brow in interesting and new ways in an attempt to generate the correct type brainwave doesn't lend itself towards natural experiences and immersion.

/offtopic

Why is it called ¨sword art¨ ?
All they seem to do when fighting is spamming the attack button. :lol:

"CoolZ" wrote:
Hey geekmaster,
don't cut part of what I said...
for 79.99 you can but one of the many variants of neurosky...
the price for the game (focus pocus) is 99...
99 dollars is nothing compared to what it does... but if don't see the value is fine.

I'm talking about put a single electrode on the foam of rift (and I suggested http://www.neurosky.com/Products/ThinkGearAM.aspx)

I started talking about focus pocus to give an example (even if is seems that you don't need) of a simple to use product of eeg right now.

People just think about emotiv... they miss a lot of other products (neuroscan, brainvision, g.tec, nexus, ect... those are all examples of eeg amplifiers)... the point about that is that are very expensive (even if with a s/n ratio much better than emotiv)...

As I already said there are a lot of centers around the world that are developing new kind of electrodes cheap and effective.

Okay, you want me to quote your entire post then, instead of just the part I am responding to? Should I just highlight those parts then?

My post was mostly a request for clarification. Reading it and the webpage at your link just raised some questions (and eyebrows) in my mind. Thanks for (almost) clearing that up.

But your post above pretty much repeats what I said, and a simple electrode would be even cheaper than NeuroSky hardware, tipping the balance further. But okay, I see that you just used them as an example, although your posts made it sound (to me) like you knew the guys who created that software, and it was also what you said you can customize. That is still not clear to me. Who created what, and which will you customize, and how is it different from the $100 software at your link? And are you offering your customization service for free, or how much do you plan to charge for this service? Such unanswered questions are what cause "raised eyebrows", and still remain unanswered...

If you do not want to answer my questions, that is fine, but then why challenge my partial quote of your post, and not really answer the questions raised in it?

"bakersean" wrote:
But being able to control every movement possible including facial expressions and portray them in a virtual environment using just the signals of the brain sounds rather interesting and very possible.

It is not possible to do this with current tech. If EEG technology becomes viable in a consumer product, I would be the first to get excited. Until then, it remains a gimmick with limited use, at least for gaming. There is lots of interesting research that can be done with what we have today, but it is just not good enough to put in a consumer VR device.

"CoolZ" wrote:
Hey geekmaster,
don't cut part of what I said...
for 79.99 you can but one of the many variants of neurosky...
the price for the game (focus pocus) is 99...
99 dollars is nothing compared to what it does... but if don't see the value is fine.

I'm talking about put a single electrode on the foam of rift (and I suggested http://www.neurosky.com/Products/ThinkGearAM.aspx)

I started talking about focus pocus to give an example (even if is seems that you don't need) of a simple to use product of eeg right now.

People just think about emotiv... they miss a lot of other products (neuroscan, brainvision, g.tec, nexus, ect... those are all examples of eeg amplifiers)... the point about that is that are very expensive (even if with a s/n ratio much better than emotiv)...

As I already said there are a lot of centers around the world that are developing new kind of electrodes cheap and effective.

I think the reason people tend to think of Emotiv is because the Emotiv EEG and the Epoc neuroheadsets are capable of providing much higher res data than the alternatives.
I haven't bothered looking that stuff up in a while though so I wouldn't be too surprised if something better had come along in terms of fidelity, but the emotiv headsets have a number of electrodes whereas all the alternatives I have seen have just one or two.
I'm no expert in the field, so feel free to correct me if my post sounds pointless.

Thanks HappyHimitsu to let back the topic to the original one.
Actually right now eeg caps arrive to 256 or more channels...
why so much? more channels means more activations you could reconstruct...
this is a tomographic approach...
there are algorithms that you can use to reconstruct the (mainly) cortex activations...
right now the Bayesian's approaches are the more promising...
in this case, as I said, more channels you have, better and more precisely you can reconstruct the signal activation...
but you can use even a topographic approach...
in this case you record a signal from one or more channels but you use the signal/informations from the surface (here the different bands or the ERP (evoked related potentials))...
Just to give you a shot of what is going on:
ftp://sccn.ucsd.edu/pub/YT/foam%20sensors.pdf
this article came from the swartz center for computational neuroscience (the guys of eeglab)...
actually they did some other kind of electrodes too...

to geekmaster: when I was talking about customization I was referring to add a simple electrode to the rift... nothing more... but for the level of tech that is involved in the rift, adding a simple sensor should not be so hard

"CoolZ" wrote:
...
to geekmaster: when I was talking about customization I was referring to add a simple electrode to the rift... nothing more... but for the level of tech that is involved in the rift, adding a simple sensor should not be so hard

Yeah, we were talking about adding electrodes to the Rift foam in the EOG thread over here:
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=140&t=17442&hilit=foam+electrode

How would you separate EEG and EOG signals?

Thanks for the link... quite interesting compared with the classical BCI speller ;)
Of course if you have just one channel isn't so easy for the blink... more channels make it easier...
But... around oculus you already have the strips... why don't you put some dry electrodes there?
you already have trips for the midline and the temporal lobes... and the rift on the prefrontals...
of course dreaming if you just add a couple of strips more so you could bend frontals, centrals and parietals both in the left and the right side of the head... well.. you have an amazing toy/bomb that can do a lot of things guys!
In this way you can easily separate the blink even without the EOG... even if... at that time have both... why not... :geek:
Ok ok... I'm dreaming... but sometimes dreams could became real :D

So possible integration from 1 ch eeg... take from the frontals... to 4-6-8 eog/eeg ch...up to 8-32/40 ch... maybe a pro version?

"CoolZ" wrote:
Thanks for the link... quite interesting compared with the classical BCI speller ;) ..

Two different ways of trying to do the same thing. One tries to detect a flash in foveal vision processing corresponding to an intersecting row and column, and the other tries to figure out where your eyes are pointing based on eye muscle EMG signals. After watching both demos, the EOG method seems be faster and more reliable, requiring less training and calibration, and a lot less electrodes (on none tangled in the hair). EEG signals get diluted and distorted while travelling through the skull.

An alternative to EEG that measures the distorted electric fields on the scalp, is measuring magnetic fields that travel cleanly through the skull, by using SQUIDs (Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices). Since I first read about scientific "mind reading" using such devices back in the mid 60's, I have been waiting patiently for them to become affordable. Each time higher-temperature superconductors were discovered, I wanted to see these implemented. Unfortunately, such information rarely reaches the news outlets to come to my attention.

gyros replaced by cam sensors..........3 cams placed outside in room observing head movement?