| Author
|
the neuronal midi controller has arrived!
|
Boobytrip
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
39
Posts :
988
Posted : Apr 27, 2008 01:02
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-26 17:35, shamantrixx wrote:
Controllers of that kind already operate in cars and other technology. A single IR sensor can precisely monitor your eye movement therefore replacing mouse. It can tell when you're nervous, sleepy, not paying attention... and the best of all is the cost of that technology.... They call it ONE DOLLAR technology.
The future is now 
|
|
Sure, it can do all these things. On average, across a large number of measurements. But can it tell whether you're nervous based on one eye blink ? Can you savely drive a car at 120 kilometers an hour with your eyes using only infrared ? If you want to use this technology for critical applications, these are the kinds of things that really matter. Anyways, i would really like to control my VST's with my eyes. Just think of the sound of your eyes buzzing (Nystagmus) after eating too much E |
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Apr 27, 2008 04:00
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 01:02, Boobytrip wrote:
But can it tell whether you're nervous based on one eye blink?
|
|
IR sensor can monitor parasympathic system via pupil contractions. It also registers blinking. The combination provides very accurate data.
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 01:02, Boobytrip wrote:
Can you savely drive a car at 120 kilometers an hour with your eyes using only infrared? |
|
It's not used in that way. The system comments you're driving. It's set so that it gives more affirmations than critics and that turned out to be quite stimulating for the drivers. It improves driving skills for more than 20%
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 01:02, Boobytrip wrote:
Anyways, i would really like to control my VST's with my eyes. Just think of the sound of your eyes buzzing (Nystagmus) after eating too much E
|
|
I see that you didn't watch the lecture. It's not following your eye movement directly. It calculates from where and where to you move your eyes and it compares with the placement of objects on the screen. Also it's registering head movement (by registering changing of the light reflection angle against the eye) and we all tend to cover the 18 degrees with eye movement and for more than 18 we turn our head.
This seams to be quite effective and quite accurate.
 "It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
Boobytrip
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
39
Posts :
988
Posted : Apr 27, 2008 13:21
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 04:00, shamantrixx wrote:
I see that you didn't watch the lecture. It's not following your eye movement directly. It calculates from where and where to you move your eyes and it compares with the placement of objects on the screen. Also it's registering head movement (by registering changing of the light reflection angle against the eye) and we all tend to cover the 18 degrees with eye movement and for more than 18 we turn our head.
This seams to be quite effective and quite accurate.
|
|
Dude, with all respect for your intentions, please don't lecture me on experimental psychology or cognitive neuroscience. I have been using infrared eyetrackers for over 7 years, i know how they work and what you can do with them. It was only a bad joke. |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Apr 27, 2008 18:09
|
Look... I'm not lecturing you. I've searched for latest informations from the field of movement and emotion recognition. I've actually watched the lecture from Ted Selker given on Stanford University few months ago. Contrary to your statements on this thread it seams like technology is more than capable to replace current mouse based interface. I'm not saying that "the neuronal midi controller" is working or that it is not a joke... I can't know that until I try (which I'm not going to).
If lecture from Stanford is bullshit that I'm saying bullshit also, but somehow I doubt that.
And no offense but the field of experimental psychology is as good as the underlying psychology, and that happens to be utter bullshit. Their understanding of human psyche is still mechanistic and based on equally bad Newtonian physics. I happen to know both fields quite well since they overlap with my work.
Cognitive neuroscience has few individuals who are making slow progress (like V.S. Ramachandran) but most of the field is also infantile and full of prejudice.
Anyway... I don't doubt that you know much about this subject but the attitude you have is not healthy. You assume to know everything there is to know and let me remind you that science rarely gives birth to "theory" that survives more than 20 years. So far science has always been wrong and it's going to stay that way so far as scientist continue to assume that they know everything there is to know.
Chill out!
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
Boobytrip
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
39
Posts :
988
Posted : Apr 28, 2008 15:43
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 18:09, shamantrixx wrote:
And no offense but the field of experimental psychology is as good as the underlying psychology, and that happens to be utter bullshit.
|
|
Partly yes, and that's what i've been trying to get across here all the time (aargh !). And this is why i'm a little skeptical when someone says:
"It can tell when you're nervous, sleepy, not paying attention..."
That was all.
The interpretation step is very important, and i think that we are not yet able to objectively measure subjective experience. So i'm only saying that it is a long way from finding a correlation between two measures and being able to correctly interpret physiological data in psychological terms. And, as a result, that you are likely to be disappointed if you spend your money on an EEG helmet.
One more thing, you are using experimental psychological data and interpretations(which are presented in the Stanford lecture) to prove a point and then happily go on saying that it's underlying psychology is bullshit.
Anyhow, i don't intend to repeat myself here any longer or waste my energy on a pseudo discussion which has nothing to do with psytrance. In my experience (measure me if you can), it feels too much like talking to an advocate of 'intelligent design' or a defective chinese room.
Booby over and out. |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Apr 28, 2008 17:17
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-28 15:43, Boobytrip wrote:
i think that we are not yet able to objectively measure subjective experience. So i'm only saying that it is a long way from finding a correlation between two measures and being able to correctly interpret physiological data in psychological terms. |
|
There is no such thing as objective measure. Objectivity is an abstraction that we commonly use in everyday speech when we really mean "non biased" measure or interpretation.
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-28 15:43, Boobytrip wrote:
And, as a result, that you are likely to be disappointed if you spend your money on an EEG helmet. |
|
I agree with that!
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-28 15:43, Boobytrip wrote:
One more thing, you are using experimental psychological data and interpretations(which are presented in the Stanford lecture) to prove a point and then happily go on saying that it's underlying psychology is bullshit. |
|
Measurements and behavioral patterns can be used in many ways (if they are correct) but that does not imply understanding them. We can measure many things that we don't understand and some of those are quite useful and reliable. Just as we all use time (clock) but nobody understands it and it is still an ongoing argue about weather there is such thing as time at all.
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-28 15:43, Boobytrip wrote:
Anyhow, i don't intend to repeat myself here any longer or waste my energy on a pseudo discussion which has nothing to do with psytrance. In my experience (measure me if you can), it feels too much like talking to an advocate of 'intelligent design' or a defective chinese room.
|
|
Intelligent design is even bigger bullshit than current understanding of psychology but I fail to see the relevance of John Searle's chinese room experiment with our conversation (and I quite like the guy so that makes me puzzled)!?
Anyway... we don't have to carry on since we agree on all major aspects as far as I can see.
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
|
