Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Input Devices Entertainment Games

Brain Control Headset for Gamers 152

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the get-out-of-my-brain dept.
gbjbaanb writes "Gamers will soon be able to interact with the virtual world using their thoughts and emotions alone. Headsets which read neural activity are not new, but Ms Le [president of US/Australian firm Emotiv] said the Epoc was the first consumer device that can be used for gaming. 'This is the first headset that doesn't require a large net of electrodes, or a technician to calibrate or operate it and does require gel on the scalp,' she said. 'It also doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars.'" Wait until the government can get warrantless wiretaps on the logs of those things.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brain Control Headset for Gamers

Comments Filter:
  • Mindstorms (Score:5, Interesting)

    by n3tcat (664243) on Wednesday February 20, 2008 @09:49AM (#22487162) Homepage
    I can't wait to see what some hardware hackers can do with this and a Lego Mindstorms NXT robot!
  • I wonder. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AltGrendel (175092) <ag-slashdot@@@exit0...us> on Wednesday February 20, 2008 @09:55AM (#22487226) Homepage
    When will people like Mr. S. Hawking get one?

    Probably could help them quiet a bit with things.

  • maybe I miss read. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BrianHursey (738430) on Wednesday February 20, 2008 @09:56AM (#22487252) Homepage Journal
    Did it say it required gel or did not. I have had multiple EEG's and the gel is not fun. It is like gel with sand in it. "This is the first headset that doesn't require a large net of electrodes, or a technician to calibrate or operate it and does require gel on the scalp," she said. "It also doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars."
  • Re:Bad summary. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Purity Of Essence (1007601) on Wednesday February 20, 2008 @10:01AM (#22487282)
    Hmmm. That doesn't sound any better than the Atari Mindlink developed in the early eighties. That thing was reported to give players terrible headaches.

    http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/2600/mindlink.html [atarimuseum.com]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Mindlink [wikipedia.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20, 2008 @10:03AM (#22487290)
    This is definately a technology i'm interested in, it will be awesome for game controlling and possibly helpful for the disabled. However, I think there are some concerns which need to addressed in its application.

    For example, the Half-Life 2 games send an enormous ammount of information to Valve regarding player performance and interaction.

    Do you really want your emotional reactions broadcast over the internet? Aren't these pitfalls and questions inevitable with this technology?
  • Not really (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joeyblades (785896) on Wednesday February 20, 2008 @10:03AM (#22487296)
    I've been seeing these claims for years, but this technology is not really based on thought. It's just one form of bio-feedback. It is an example of control without conventional physical contact, but it does not process structured thought. The user typically has to train themselves to control the feedback mechanism. This is NOT reeading thoughts and taking some action. It is using thoughts to modulate some physical process. In that sense, it's not much different than training your fingers to operate a game controller.
  • Re:Not really (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joeyblades (785896) on Wednesday February 20, 2008 @10:58AM (#22487924)
    > Then what are thoughts?

    This question is key. No one knows. There are a lot of people working on a lot of theories, but none of them have anything tangible yet. Until we understand how the brain creates thoughts, we can't expect a computer interface to interpret them.

    > The voice in your head that you identify as yourself?

    Now we're branching into the philosophical, but I'll bite. No, that voice is just one manifestation of thoughts. What about the movies that play out in your brain? Would you not classify these as thoughts, yet often they would not correlate with potential verbalizations? There are other concepts in my head that I don't have a clue how to put into words. I may attempt it from time-to-time, but these verbalizations are byproducts of the original thought. They may, in fact, be unique thoughts of their own, but they are not the root thoughts.

    > When that "thinks" in words, your voicebox moves. It's just speech with the volume turned down
    > as far as possible, and it's possible to detect it ...

    Interesting theory. I've never seen anyone make this claim before. While I think it's possible that the larynx undergoes some change when we think of vocalizations, I doubt that it is a relaiable reproduction of the movements associated with the potential verbalization. Here's why I have my doubts:

        (1) The voice in my head speaks much faster than I am able to reproduce with my larynx
        (2) The voice in my head continues to ramble on, even when I'm eating or drinking

    and most damning to your theory

        (3) Sometimes the voice in my head is going on about one thing at the same time I'm speaking about something else entirely

All the evidence concerning the universe has not yet been collected, so there's still hope.

Working...