backtop


Print 12 comment(s) - last by wsc.. on Sep 12 at 4:35 PM


Two kinds of microelectrodes sitting on top of the brain  (Source: University of Utah Department of Neurosurgery)
New smaller, impenetrable microelectrodes could help paralyzed patients communicate safely

Researchers from the University of Utah have found a way for severely paralyzed humans to "speak with their thoughts" through the use of microelectrode implants on top of the brain.  

Brain signals of paralyzed people can be translated into words through the use of two grids of 16 microelectrodes which are implanted above the brain and beneath the skull. But unlike many other types of electrodes, these microelectrode implants are much smaller than traditional electrodes developed half a century ago and they don't penetrate the brain at all -- they simply sit on top of it. These microelectrodes are called microECoGs, and their ability to work without penetrating the brain makes them safer for speech areas of the brain, which cannot be said for penetrating electrodes up to this point. 

The microelectrode implants work by placing the microECoGs, each spaced 1 millimeter apart, on two different speech areas of the brain: the facial motor cortex and the Wernicke's area. The facial motor complex controls movement of the lips, mouth, tongue and face while Wernicke's area is a "little understood" area in the brain that is linked to language understanding and comprehension. 

Bradley Greger, an assistant professor of bioengineering and lead author of this study, along with his team, tested the use of the microelectrode implants on a volunteer with severe epileptic seizures. They were able to place the implants between the brain and the skull due to the volunteer's previous craniotomy, which is the temporary partial removal of the skull in order to locate and surgically stop the seizures. 

Greger and his team then placed the microelectrodes on the man's brain and had him repeatedly read 10 words that would be useful to him while his brain signals were recorded. The words were repeated 31 to 96 times, and were “yes”, “no”, “goodbye”, “hello”, “more”, “less”, “hot”, “cold”, “hungry”, and “thirsty”. After recording the volunteer's brain signals, the team then went to figure out which brain signals represented which of the 10 words. 

When comparing brain signals for words like "yes" and "no" or "hot" and "cold," Greger and his team were able to recognize brain signals for each word 76 to 90 percent of the time. When all 10 brain signals were compared at once, it was a bit more difficult. The team could only correctly match a signal with a word 28 to 48 percent of time, but Greger argues that these numbers are still better than chance, which is 10 percent. 

"This is proof of concept," said Greger. "We've proven these signals can tell you what the person is saying well above above chance. But we need to be able to more with words with more accuracy before it is something a patient really might find useful."

Even though this new method requires a lot of improvement before it can be used in clinical trials, Greger and his team did find some interesting results, such as the fact that Wernicke's area is more involved in high-level understanding of language and that the team was able to distinguish signals for one word from those for another 85 percent of the time when signals were recorded from the facial motor complex. When recorded from Wernicke's area, they were only able to distinguish signals 76 percent of the time.

"The obvious next step - and this is what we are doing right now - is to do it with bigger microelectrode grids," said Greger. "We can make the grid bigger, have more electrodes and get a tremendous amount of data out of the brain, which probably means more words and better accuracy."

The study was published in the Journal of Neural Engineering this month.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Impenetrable
By SpinCircle on 9/7/2010 1:48:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"New smaller, impenetrable microelectrodes could help paralyzed patients communicate safely"


I'm thinking you should have said something like 'non-penetrating". Using the word impenetrable makes it sound like the sensors can't be punctured or something.

Either way though, this is pretty cool news.




RE: Impenetrable
By ViroMan on 9/7/2010 7:31:06 PM , Rating: 2
I for one, will welcome our new cyborg overlords.


RE: Impenetrable
By Robear on 9/7/2010 11:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
Definition of IMPENETRABLE

1
a : incapable of being penetrated or pierced
b : inaccessible to knowledge, reason, or sympathy : impervious
2: incapable of being comprehended : inscrutable

Incorrect use: New smaller, impenetrable microelectrodes could help paralyzed patients communicate safely.

Correct use: It is impenetrable how so many blatant grammatical errors get published on this site.

Honestly though perhaps DailyTech should consider hiring writers or something. I'm a software guy who dropped out of high school and >I< catch a half-dozen-odd errors each week.

Don't bother hiring an editor, fine, but at least give the thing a once-over before you publish it.

(Irony: Posting comments require that you review it first, but apparently posting news stories does not lol)


UPDATE: Included Phrases
By chagrinnin on 9/7/2010 3:53:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Greger and his team then placed the microelectrodes on the man's brain and had him repeatedly read 10 words...The words were repeated 31 to 96 times, and were “yes”, “no”, “goodbye”, “hello”, “more”, “less”, “hot”, “cold”, “hungry”, and “thirsty”.


UPDATE: When the phrases "Please, kill me", "I crapped myself", and "Scratch my balls" were included the volunteer "spoke" "Please kill me" 95 times out of a hundred. "Scratch my balls" was "spoken" 4 times and "I crapped myself" one time,(the volunteer had actually crapped himself when he "spoke" the phrase!) We were very pleased with the results and look forward to many more years of funding for this research. :P




RE: UPDATE: Included Phrases
By RugMuch on 9/7/2010 4:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
I wish I could vote yours up but maybe the man can scratch his with this

http://www.dailytech.com/Human+Testing+to+Begin+on...


Long way to go yet
By RaggedClaws on 9/8/2010 1:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
The real Nobel stuff will come when someone figures out a way to directly interface brain and machine so that the connected device is experienced as an extension of the conscious mind.




RE: Long way to go yet
By lyeoh on 9/8/2010 11:58:15 AM , Rating: 3
I thought they called that an iPhone? :)


severly paralyzed
By manofhorn on 9/8/2010 1:03:02 PM , Rating: 3
severely? "this man is severely paralyzed. he totally can't move his legs at all. not even a little!"




Thoughts
By RugMuch on 9/7/2010 2:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well, first thoughts

as long as my fingers work I can pull a Hawkins.

uh, check out military com technologies nothing new, maybe if the article wasn't just a pull out a of a mag and regurgitated to us, we could read something interesting not just smaller computer components help man.

Maybe we could go more in depth about how the broca part of the brain has been known for a very long time (1864) stemming the phrase “Nous parlons avec l'hémisphère gauche!” (“We speak with the left hemisphere!”)

Verdamnt Nach Mal!




I approve ;]
By tomosius on 9/7/2010 2:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
A lot more research of this kind needs to be done! BUI ftw! (Brain-User-Interface ;)




Accuracy
By KIAman on 9/9/2010 3:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
Although this technology is great and I hope that it will improve quality of life for many people, I can't help but realize the accuracy of such a machine is almost entirely dependant on the patient.

Try to focus on one word like "yes" and repeat it 75-100 times. See if you can focus exactly on the word and how it feels to mouth it. Most likely your mind will drift to women in bikinis and words that rhyme with "yes" after the 30-40th iteration.

A machine will find it next to impossible to filter out the noise in our minds.




Someone did it with a PC and a webcam
By wsc on 9/12/2010 4:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
Patient who is able to control even one eye can just type. Without electrodes under his or her skull. And with 100% accuracy. In short: using a piece of software and a webcam. See link below.

http: //medialt.no/pub/uikt/u2010/011-Krolak/index.html
wsc




"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki