DNI goes Hollywood

Well, not really. But, I did help a couple friends with a short film project that was accepted to the Cannes Film Festival. Yeah, THAT Cannes. While it isn't as amazing as getting a judged feature in, it's still a crazy awesome opportunity, so here I am.

For those interested, the short is called Hushed and is a psychological thriller based around the idea of choice and free will. We used a religious theme, a group of folks going door-to-door witnessing for their unspecified religious sect, but isn't about, or pro, or con, religion. Since shorts are designed to either sell the story or the production group, there are a bunch of decisions you have to make regarding content. You want to show an understanding of the film making process, the business, and the showcase some creative talent. We really did do this in spades. The story is left open at the end, even though you generally have the illusion of thinking you know what it means. The main character remains a blank slate the whole way through, even though most people are sure they could describe him at the end (and these descriptions aren't consistent from person-to-person based on our polling, and people thought they were accurate in their descriptions). Basically, we played on biases heavily.

The religious theme was to create an immediate relationship between viewer and characters - it doesn't matter if you are a bible thumper or Richard Dawkins. You can root for them or against them. In a way, it is a perfect expose on innate bias. If you want to hate the characters and think they're screwed in the end, that's possible. If you love them, but think they got screwed and that the message is confrontational, you can think that. If you love them, and think they work it all out in the end, yup, there's that. The film is a product, and as a product, I think it rocked.

On the downside, we had nowhere near enough time or money to really do what we did. I mean, we did finish, but the timetable was so rushed that we couldn't do many takes of scenes. Shooting conditions, basically, left much to be desired, and a better schedule could have resulted in a better overall film. The result is some amateurish looking bits. But, we got through it. Also, while the actors and actresses did their best, the levels of experience varied greatly. That with the ramped up schedule means they are probably not portrayed as performing at the best of their ability. Awesome folks, though, and they stuck through the whole deal like champs. I know there are some scenes that could have been better, but there was just no time.

So, what did I do? Well, I was one of the 5 writers of the story and screenplay. I helped with a good deal of the technical aspects, was on set for every shoot (except one make up shoot), co-casted the talent, set photography, and basically odds and ends stuff. I was supposed to manage the post-production, but that fell suddenly and at the same time as major lab events began unfolding. Same goes for the website, which I started (the current one is the early alpha version, but unannounced deadlines and ramp up in lab work kept me from moving too far on that. So, I've been a busy beaver.

Check out the movie's site, if you're interested, and if you happen to be in Cannes, France or nearby and want to meet up for cafe', feel free to drop me a line.

BCI on House

If you love House, that great TV show starring Hugh Laurie as the cantankerous Dr. Gregory House, you should have noticed that they used a BCI in the most recent episode (season 5 episode 19). I was waiting for Hulu to have it up, but got enough emails and calls that I thought I would mention it today. Typical TV BCI, EEG-ish and mystical in operation, but the episode was pretty well done, with internal dialogue from the patient and no spelling of words as fast an able-bodied person could say them, but got a little cheesy. Still, this is an example of where an EEG system would make more sense than an implanted one. Cursor up for yes, cursor down for no.

Honda: Our in-house research can't read

Apparently, Honda has decided that they are the first to use a BCI (NIRS and EEG combo in this case) to control a robot (video here-and, oh, is it worth it). Not the first to use this technique, but the first to do it, ever. Okay, let's pretend that the Fetz 1969 experiments drove a 'device' instead of a robot (I'm not even sure how far back a device driven by surface electrode input might have been), but this is massively misleading. Sure this is just a stupid company statement, but Google "first robot controlled by a BCI" in two days and this crap will be the #1 result. *facepalm* I'm sure I can't really have an impact on such a large corporation's ridiculous press statement, so instead enjoy this video of ASIMO falling down stairs:



Thanks Katie for the heads up.

60 Minutes

So, did you catch it? Not just the show, but my hands are CLEARLY visible in a couple frames! See...



But seriously, I thought it was a really good piece overall, and nicely balanced. I must have explained what I do to my grandma a hundred times, but she didn't understand it until this report. Also, I like checking out the comments people make on the various sites that post these stories*. You can buy the episode on DVD at Amazon, apparently.

A little "Behind the Scenes" bit for you. After Cathy played the media player (standard Windows Media Player, btw), the cameras stopped filming and the crew began discussing the setup for the next shot. I think the reporter (Scott Pelley) was the one that said to a crew member, "I'm having a hard time hearing you because of the music." A couple people began to walk over to the speakers to turn down the volume. Before they reached the speakers, not more than 10 feet away, Cathy had turned the music off. It was a somewhat surreal moment where the research and media attention fell into the background. Not only was it one of the first completely unstructured uses of the system I've seen, but there was a serene normalcy to the situation. Even when all intentions are to be respectful, under typical conditions there is an unacknowledged barrier between the user and the rest of the people in the room. For a moment, that barrier simply disappeared.

The entire clip is available below. Site here.


* There are inevitably a few total whack job posts about secret government projects or aliens, so the mass media coverage provides a good source of lulz. Even Free Republic (staunchly conservative site) is carrying the story. And to answer some of the posts there - our project will be infinitely better off if Obama is elected. If you really care about developing this type of technology, vote for Obama. :P

60 Minutes!

I almost forgot! Tomorrow night the project will be featured on 60 Minutes. You might even see me in the background! This is my biggest media appearance since the back of my head was featured on the Discovery Channel while working for Phil Kennedy (for 2 seconds)!

(The below videos didn't want to work correctly during the preview, so if they are broken when this is posted, just head over the 60 Minutes site.)

A somber item and reminder

VERSUS

I know we usually cover lighter topics and that the presentation at DNI is often on the more flippant side, but I think it is important to occasionally reassess the real, serious implications that come with any medical research. So, in the spirit of reminding everyone of one of the many reasons we do this work, I thought I would point out a couple video clips on CNN regarding a 23 year old man who, after becoming paralyzed during rugby practice, opted for suicide.

There are a number of topics to think about when considering stories like this one. While working for Phil Kennedy, the producers of Chicago Hope consulted him on BCI technology for locked-in patients. In the episode, after successfully restoring communication, the patient just said that they wanted to die.

To some extent, I like to think that just having the prospect of technologies like neural interfaces gives some hope to those that could benefit from the them. In fact, part of the reason that DNI is so light hearted is that I know prospective users will stumble on this site, and rather than ramble on about technical minutia and incremental developments, a little silliness and discussion of broader topics should (hopefully) break up the monotony of wading through numbers, error bars, and scientifically inept mass media reports.

If you keep up with the neuro shared items feed, I think one message regarding the field should be clear: Hang in there. We're on it!

Rockin tidbits

First, as I type, I'm watching the premier episode of Prototype This, and I gotta say I really like it so far. Check it out on Discovery Channel. As a bonus, the first episode features the Emotiv EEG BCI system. The task is to design a car that is driven by biofeedback (they started with the idea of shutting off a car in response to road rage, but it seems to be drifting towards the more fun idea of controlling the car's navigation). They also visit BioPac - which makes a number of biofeedback-related systems and sensors. Perhaps they should get one of these to add to the fun (sample video below).

The most important thing about this episode is that it highlights a concept that everyday people don't think about much, namely that any controllable signal can be translated into a computer input, and thus tied to anything a computer can control. This is a great concept to drive home for BCI enthusiasts and general hacker types. It also hits the real life issues introduced by using niche/'vertical market' devices. We know those problems all too well (and by we, I mean JDS, or as we call him "The BrainGate").



And a plane, which is the awesome-er-est:



Next, just a reminder that there are two available sites for news stories which are constantly updated .

For neuro/bci items:
http://www.google.com/reader/shared/user/12240293210094451962/state/com.google/starred

For tech items:
http://www.google.com/reader/shared/12240293210094451962

Brainwashing

Following on the heels of a meeting full of "Meh", I was happy to see this excellent article on Cracked. Yes, the Cracked humor site has a serious article about how everyone is brainwashing everyone else. We've gotten to the point where not only is the best source of TV news on Comedy Central, but humor magazines are now just printing normal news-type articles because the actual news is just laughable. Sigh...

Three for the TV

I was just watching the latest episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, and realized I haven't mentioned how much I fucking love that show. (Sorry, the swearing wears off on ya!) So, here are three geeky science show every adult should like:
1) Penn and Teller: Bullshit! - The comedic geniuses/masters of illusion take on topics ranging from animal rights to sleep (the latest episode, which was great). Airs on Showtime, or though the usual non-legit channels. Not always the most accurate, and definitely not balanced, though surprisingly fair when it comes to air time, P&T:B! pulls opinions from professionals of the related fields and asks the tough questions.
2) Mythbusters - Airs on the Discovery Channel, and safe for the kids. Special effects masters take on urban legends to test their plausibility. The experiments are not always final, the methods rarely conventional, but overall the best resource of basic cable for examining how to approach a question, from hypothesis formation, expectations, resources, and execution.
3) Dexter - This HBO original is told from the perspective of a serial killer that works for the police department investigating serial killers. Wha? Geeky? Psychologically geeky, my friend! First, you are forced to take the perspective of the typical villain, and you end up LIKING him. Second, the internal dialogue filled with blunted affect (an understatement) provides an interesting analysis of the mental workings of the protagonist.

Honorable mention: Master Blasters - Two teams of old time, salt of the Earth style engineers get a rocketry related task, generally pretty complicated, and compete for your entertainment. I don't know how, but it just works. It's everything that Smash Lab (see below) isn't, though a very similar style. You see them working out equations, sketching ideas, and the payoff is always impressive.

Two shows to avoid:
Brainiac - Yes, it has "brain" in the title. Yes, they perform 'experiments'. The show is the ADHD younger and more immature brother of Mythbusters. Unfortunately, this younger brother also works in marketing and not science, and experienced massive head trauma sometime before writing the experimental outlines.

Smash Lab - One shot big-boom experiments by good looking hosts don't make up for the total lack of any sophistication in experiment design. You get the feeling they're going entirely on intuition, and the results are usually unimpressive. Smash Lab - Try to cause the least damage to be inflicted on a car when hit by a train by attaching something to the train (car totaled at the end of the show). Master Blasters - Launch a Mini Cooper using two jet booster engines through a footbal upright 250 meters away and land in the Mini Cooper sized bullseye (both accomplish it using different designs, one lands 4 feet from the bullseye).

Fox News - Accurete Repoting!

This, what I guess passes for an article at Fox News, mentions 'The Lab' along with my old 'The Lab'. The quotes, images and, well, all the content regarding the current 'The Lab' is straight out of video clips or other publicly available material. I think they were just going to write an update on Phil Kennedy's work and the reporter needed to add some fluff. So, go ahead and take a peak if you want. You might want your 5 minutes of life back, though.

In REAL news, can't say anything more, but you might see me in the background on a upcoming major news show airing in the Fall. not saying anything more until everything is public, but that's part of the reason for the slowed updates lately.

And just a quickie on the first topic. I find it odd that every 6 months or so, there is an update on the project here. I mean, yes, we make progress, but the updates seem to come randomly. Sometimes they're started by a rogue Reddit or Digg post, sometimes there's a big media blitz. I know that there are times when the company is looking for investors and when we get publications, where I expect media coverage, but at least half the stories I've come across have been completely out of the blue. The only possible conclusion I can come to is that people are weird. That is all. If you read the Fox article and read this, I bet you want your 10 minutes of life back. Too bad, they're mine now.

Support!

I know, no posts and then I post something utterly unrelated.

But, if you are a part of net culture, you owe it to yourself to download the new Nine Inch Nails album, which is free. No, not as in "find it on bit torrent" free, but as in on Trent's site, with a the note: "as a thank you to our fans for your continued support, we are giving away the new nine inch nails album one hundred percent free, exclusively via nin.com."

So, yes, go get it in any of several formats, including better than CD quality WAV, MP3, lossless, etc. Even if you download it and delete it, show your support for changing the music industry through REAL dedication to the art, not that namby pamby marketing stunt crap that Radiohead pulled. Reznor has been single-handedly turning the industry on its head, and this is just the latest. And yes, he is still making money doing it.

Alright, back to the BCI schuffthz....

Multimedia mumbo jumbo

An excellent catch by Mike over at Brain Stimulant - a BBC documentary called Human 2.0 can be found online. (Very nice blog, very regularly updated and more on-topic than mine!) Go give him some traffic lovin'. Linky linky...

Also, Mind Hacks has a link to a PBS documentary torrent (OMG! Police! Police! j/k) on the ever popular frontal lobotomy. More info at Neurophilosophy.

And my little contributions:
- The popular song "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, Than have to have a frontal lobotomy" was written by Dr. Randy Hanzlick (Dr. Rock), and can be found on the Dr. Demento 30th Anniversary Collection: Dementia 2000. While I can't find it on 'the usual suspects', it can be found, if you're a little lucky, on SoulSeek. A similarly themed song can be found by Faster Pussycat.
- Another PBS documentary, part of the PBS Curious series, can be found in torrent form as well. This is more on AI and robots, but still delves into some basic neuro and worth a watch.

RIAA doomed

I know I'm getting off the BCI track a little, but this was too cool to not post.

A new compression format for audio could compress music down the 1/1000th the size of current mp3s. That's not the interesting part. The interesting par tis how they do it: they model every instrument used in the recording and then decode the saved music by essentially replaying it through the encoded. So, there is an encoder for the saxophone, the movement of fingers on the violin string, etc. The linked article on Gizmodo went so far as to suggest modeling the vocal cords of, say, Frank Sinatra, so that old artists could release new music. I'd bet the Elvis estate would be alllll over this.

The two obvious cases where this wouldn't work well would be a) many, many many, layers/tracks/simultaneous sounds (though that would probably have to be in the tens of thousands range), and b) many, many, many instruments/sound producing items coupled with (a). The way the article describes it, each instrument is an individual class, but there are some hints that the decomposition is not related to any 'real' entity, but some type of waveform classification. I tried to think about how this could be done, and really, there are probably about at least a half dozen ways that I could think of off the top of my head, and I'm not an engineer.

Really cool stuff. Also, it is theoretically capable of 1:1 quality matching. Also, and album would be 200kB. And broadband speeds are increasing everywhere*. Night, night RIAA.

*-Verizon FiOS is now available in my area! As soon as I find a real work around for the obnoxiously bad router they provide, which is uber specialized (MOCA and Cat5), I am all over that. I hate my current cable/internet provider (Cox Comm).

Original article

More on the inevitable robot uprising

Perhaps Houdini's historic struggle against our soon to be metal masters should be put in context. What if the great art works of our time reflected a world where man and machine lived side by side?

The time for wondering those thoughts is GONE! We must not be weak! We have already given them a taste of human blood as machines of battle and industry, even at our own insistence. Imagine death from above, as the our diminutive circuit board superpowers that be watch from the skies.

But, are we willing to give up our newly revitalized BattleBots TV shows (OMGOMGOMG YAY!) and Roombas (and their knock offs) in exchange for this? And what if they combine their consumer level powers to form monstrosities truly terrifying, like videoed below? Keep idolizing them, sharing them with our children, and reporting on science for 1 freaking minute out of 5 hours of news material, and I'm sure this day will sneak up on us, just as we taught them. Now get me another beer, beerBot!



Sources:
BoingBoing
Mind Hacks
DVice
Gizmodo
Switched
Robot Gossip (love it, but needs more updates!)
Etsy

Off the cuff comic item

I'm watching the latest Totally Rad Show, which is a best of the past year episode, and they mentioned a comic called The Surrogates. Might be of interest to you BCIers out there, since it revolves around the idea of neurally interfacing with robots that go out and live the person's life while the controller remains at home. It brings up interesting topics, like if you 'kill' a surrogate is it murder?

For more comic goodness from the independent comic scene, check out Independent Propaganda.

Link Dump

So, I still got plenty of good stuff from 2007. Here are some tasty tidbits.

Media related items:
- Newsweek had an article on "Life 2.0" - the idea of creating new lifeforms based on our understanding of genetics.

- Book review of a novel on how people recover from brain damage.

- Yeh! New movie coming from DreamWorks dealing with government conspiracy and brain implants.

- Tooting our own horn, our lab was mentioned by CNet in a brief article titled "Pondering Our Cyborg Future."

Neuroinformatics
- Neural substrates of planning

- Modeling spontaneous activity (paper linked)

- Conceptual Metaphor Memory - VERY interesting look at a cognitive linguistics theory that metaphor-like associations are the primary means of experience building. Read this before going to bed.

- Neuroinformation theory video

Parkinson's

- Stem cell therapy shows promise

- How implants ease Parkinson's symptoms

- Two types of cells lost

HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray

Last post for today.

If you were waiting on buying a high def player, wait no more. HD-DVD is all but dead. Go ahead and get a Blu-Ray player. If HD-DVD wins at this point, I will buy every reader a flagship HD-DVD player. (Lost several major studios last month, recommended by Best Buy last month (read: uneducated masses will have to hunt for the HD-DVDs in the store while Blu-Ray on end caps and with demo stations), now no longer carried by Walmart, no longer carried by Netflix, and Toshiba now suspending the actual manufacturing of the discs.) BUT...

There are several Blu-Ray 'profiles' - 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0. Current players are only in the v1 realm, and the only firmware upgradeable player is the Playstation 3. What does this mean? Profile 2 basically just adds the ability to access online content. If you can do without that, you can get another player. The profiles refer to added features, and if you get a "profile 2.0" disc, but only have a profile 1.1 player, you can still play the disc, just not access the 2.0 specific content.

That being said, the PS3 is not an ideal Blu-Ray player for two main reasons.

1) The remote is RF only (actually Bluetooth), which means that if you have an all-in-one remote, like the Logitech Harmony line that I LOVE, it is useless for controlling the PS3. There is a 'work around' to get IR support that involves getting an old PS2 IR remote and a USB to PS2 controller adapter, which might be worth looking into if you plan on making the jump.

2) It is loud. Not jet engine in the living room or XBox 360 loud, but more noticeable than a standard player (it starts off near silent, but around mid-way through the movie the fans kick in). Nice comparison (don't trust the YouTube videos).

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly Review

Turns out that the artsy little Cable Car Cafe was showing The Diving Bell and the Butterfly all this time (they don't show up on the major movie theater sites). Saw it last night, and here are some general thoughts.

First of all, everyone in this field should both read the book and see this movie. The book is a more somber, introspective experience, forcing you to take some real time to consider the situation of the author (locked-in due to brainstem stroke, communicating with a single eye blink). The movie makes a bigger deal of the author's relationships with women (his children's mother, his lover, the speech therapist, anything with mammary glands), but it somehow brought it all together. I guess watching two hours of deadpan, introspective dialog just doesn't make for enjoyable viewing.

The majority of the movie is shown from the perspective of the patient (Jean-Dominique Bauby, former editor of Elle Magazine), and was truly a remarkable experience. Later, the camera does leave his body to focus on him, but the way the director goes about it is extremely artistic and at the same time respectful. Rather than hit you with the image of Mr. Bauby in his immobilized and distorted state, he makes you relate to his condition without considering the visible impact - the distorted lips, the bloodshot eye, the trach tube, etc.

I don't want to give away too much, or describe it in too much detail because some of the stark transitions and imagery is meant to be experienced as part of the progression of the film, but it was remarkable on every level. Artistically, it felt like every shot was intentional, telling its own story. The actors and actresses were just amazing. The pace was good, and the organization well thought out. I simply could not have been happier.

On the 'mechanical' side, it looked to me like everything was well represented as far as the medical issues (though I assume they removed much of the lung suctioning because it can be a little disconcerting to people not used to it).

Mathieu Amalric does an incredible job of depicting a locked-in patient. There is one emotional scene that really hit me hard. If you saw it you probably know which one it was, but Bauby's emotional response to a situation, only being able to move that one eye, was downright haunting. I've seen that look of helplessness and panic, and it brought up memories I try not to think about. Amalric's portrayal is spot-on exactly accurate, perfect, wow, can't even say how surprised I was.

Thankfully, the movie is not all about helplessness. It is in some ways uplifting, with some great scenes to match, and part documentary. You'll leave the theater quietly thinking about the whole experience, but not in the "that was so sad, I don't want to speak" sort of way. You can't help but reflect on each scene and each transition. Each moment is its own story or point to meditate on. While I wouldn't say the movie is uplifting, it wasn't depressing either, which I think was the director's attempt to catch the spirit of the book. It has been almost 10 years since I read it (now I plan on rereading it), but I remember a similar feeling. It's the Existential feeling of - this is what it is to be human, the good and the bad. One doesn't exist without the other, and you can't choose to ignore or dwell on just one aspect of your humanity forever.

People say that it isn't what you say that makes a person, it's what you do. But, then what if you can say or do nothing? That is what this movie is about.

IMdB link
Official Site
Amazon book link
Netflix queue link
Fandango theater search (be sure to check your local artsy locations, too. This is a 'foreign flick', so expect it in smaller venues.)

Totally Rad Show

For those you out there that enjoy your media - Movies, Games, TV, Comics - there is the Totally Rad Show. TRS is a weekly video download/video podcast/vodcast/whatever you call it, that reviews the latest and most talked about releases. It's fun to watch, pretty damn spot on for people of *my* generation (of the geek persuasion), and generally, well, totally rad.

I bring it up because this week's episode reviewed The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. I haven't had a chance to see it yet (nothing interesting makes it to the black hole of boredom that is Providence, RI), but now I'm thinking about trekking up to Boston to catch it.

When will science catch up with the Web?

It seems that we've had an explosion in the tools for collaborative work in programming projects, social interaction, and general resource management over the past 5 years thanks to the Web. So, why is it that science seems to be stuck back in 1993? Sure, collaboration via email, messengers, and Skype is on the rise, but where's the truly USEFUL implementations of internet technology. Ignoring the fact that 99.9% of all science department websites barely scrape by with HTML 1.0 specifications, where's the ingenuity? (I would like to point you to OUR department website - be prepared to laugh and be horrified at the same time. You've been warned!)

Sure, we can grab papers a little quicker, and there's distributed computing, but most of that is old hat, and barely a step up from 1980's clusters and Xerox machines.

The closest thing I've seen recently has been NeuroCommons - a component of Science Commons. The general idea is based around the idea of Creative Commons, a copyright method that currently fits the internet model for the publishing, display and use of original materials. This is not a niche phenomenon - heavyweights like Flickr (owned by Yahoo!) and Blogger (owned by Google) are among the companies on board.

Part of the problem is obviously recognition. New systems of copyright have yet to be really tested for how well they will hold up in court, and the impact of recognition for CC work has really yet to be seen. I think everyone is frantically trying to be the next Einstein - that lone scientific figure that makes a huge breakthrough. The more you share, the more of the limelight you lose. Add to that the issue of funding, and it's no wonder copyright/researchright schemes fail. No doubt an international free market approach to translational research would solve many of these issues (you make the discovery leading to a medication, you get part of the profit), but that leaves basic science as the bastard child of rest of research.

I have some ideas that I'm mulling over in my head right now. I like shocking the system. I don't want to share them just yet, but if I decide against my little 'plan', I'll put it out there for others to consider. There are legal reasons that this idea would not be feasible, and I'm not THAT nuts, nor do I want to jeopardize the work of others. I'll talk with some people, get some feedback, and see if it is feasible.

PopSci has a nice overview of the copyrighting idea for the uninitiated.