...and tracking by camera?

There's already camera systems in use in retail stores which measure customer flow, calculating dwell time in front of specific products, navigation between isles and so on.

Here's one example which came up in a quick Google search.

This sounds like applying that same principle within a mall to track which store a given person/type of shopper visits on a single trip.

Just like the stores, the malls already have security cameras in place, recording your visit. All they would need to do is analyse it in a different way. No one is going to get very far claiming malls or stores can't have security cameras. Are there existing laws which dictate how that footage is used?

You or I might not feel comfortable with these sorts of tracking systems, but at least with the radio system we can choose to turn off our phones.

What options does this leave for Qt-based development on embedded platforms?

Maemo on the N900 felt like the right direction with Nokia backing Qt, especially with projects like PySide created soley to offer a LGPL-licensed Python wrapper available to commercial developers (as opposed to PyQt). This permitted a single codebase to target desktop and mobile/tablet environments using a pleasant and completely open toolchain. MeeGo was set to carry on with Qt/X11.

But according to MeeGo's updated website, "We believe the future belongs to HTML5-based applications, outside of a relatively small percentage of apps, and we are firmly convinced that our investment needs to shift toward HTML5."

This is really interesting as Rosenfeld himself has previously railed against other neuroscientists for commercializing P300 based lie detectors with claims of 100% accuracy:
Simple, effective countermeasures to P300-based tests of detection of concealed information - J. PETER ROSENFELD,a MATTHEW SOSKINS,a GREGORY BOSH,a and ANDREW RYAN

"It seemed timely to investigate countermeasures to ERP-based tests also because although there have been many laboratory studies claiming 85-95% accuracy, only one field study has been published, but it reported approximately chance accuracy (Miyake, Mizutani, & Yamahura, 1993). Nevertheless, one user of these methods claims 100% accuracy and is presently attempting to commercialize them (see http://www.brainwavescience.com/). Finally, the ERP approach has now surfaced in popular novels, for example, Coonts (2003), as a foolproof method."

...

"It is noted that the subjects used by Farwell and Donchin were paid volunteers, including associates of the experimenters. Our presently reported study uses introductory psychology students as subjects, more like the subjects one might find in the field in the sense of relative lack of motivation to cooperate with operators, and perhaps lower intelligence."

The above is the original peer-reviewed paper, this review (also by Rosenfeld) below is more recent and concise:
http://www.srmhp.org/0401/brain-fingerprinting.html

The biggest example was probably how they handle multiple size screens on an extended desktop: click through the dialog once, and it remembers. The next time you connect that particular screen, you get your nice big desktop back. The Linux equivalent is a full workday worth of xorg research, and God help you if you want two different profiles (like laptop+big screen and laptop+projector).

Actually my netbook does this under Fedora 12 without issue or any special configuration.

The video chipset is Intel based (lspci says "945GME"), so it uses the fully Open Source X.org driver, and perhaps that helps.

When I plug in a screen to my netbook at the office, it recognizes the monitor ID, sets it to maximum resolution, and correctly places it relative to where the netbook sits on my desk. If I close the netbook lid and the screens go to sleep, I can unlock the system without opening it (running Synergy) and the desktop area automatically resizes to just use the monitor. If I then open the lid it resizes again to use both the netbook screen and monitor again, with the same resolutions and relative positioning as before.

The same thing happens when I take the netbook home - although there it recognizes a different monitor is being used, with a different resolution and relative position - all of my settings are remembered without my having to do anything manually. And I should probably say all of the original resolution and layout settings were done with the default, graphical tools, not by having to drop to the command line or hack any special scripts. Hell, there's not even a "xorg.conf" text file on the system, everything is auto-detected and launched automatically through the boot process.

Except for the Synergy part this is all out-of-the-box and "just works." Only caveat is I can't run Compiz at the same time because it doesn't handle the layout/resolution changes properly.

if those are barriers, then add a 6th: INABILITY TO PERSIST IN PROBLEM SOLVING. There are simple solutions to all of them, and some have several.

Sure, that's why I suggested "hurdles" to expect (as opposed to "barriers" to success), and included some suggestions - such as purchasing access to research papers, being certain to collect an unbiased sample group, and when lacking credentials finding a party which has them to review your work.

Oh my sweet variance. d00d ... I've cracke3d all of them despite being able to walk thru (ie. getting published with no affiliation and without saying I have a PhD).

Incidentally, peer review helps with spelling and grammar too. (c:

After spending the last several months learning about and experimenting with EEG in an informal environment, I would say the largest hurdles you will encounter which are likely to apply to any field of science are:

• Lack of access to high quality, peer-reviewed research - Unlike Open Source where one can simply download large and complex software (such as the Linux kernel) to examine in depth how it all works, or search large online repositories to discover discussions and explanations around key areas, scientific research papers typically have restricted access. You can find most papers online, but expect to pay upwards of $35-$50 USD per paper with only a brief paragraph-long abstract to help you determine if the information within is relevant or useful.

• The "easy" discoveries have already been made - EEG research specifically goes back to at least 1875, though many of the major discoveries still referenced today occurred in the 1960's and 1970's as the equipment got better and more sensitive. All of the classical realms of science have been around much longer of course.

• Lack of access to research-grade equipment - One way to push the boundaries of the known is with improved equipment which can take more accurate readings, thus providing information which may not have been previously explored. Again referring to EEG specifically, although various consumer-grade hardware has been released recently, the quantity and location of sensors does not match locations used by current research and the signal-to-noise ratios of the sensors themselves are quite low by comparison.

• Lack of access to large, unbiased test groups - If you lack the equipment to explore new depths, you might be able to explore new applications of known phenomena instead. However this requires access to statistically significant test groups, or in other words you can't simply do all of your experimenting on yourself or family and friends (and pets!). You need unbiased subjects and for all tests to be carried out in a carefully controlled environment if you want your results taken seriously. Which brings up the final point:

• Difficultly in presenting your results - If you don't have a PhD in your field of research, chances are you will have difficulty being taken seriously, especially if your work leapfrogs or even contradicts established work in the field. You will likely need to find another party with credentials who is willing to review your work and possibly attach their name to any publications which result. Setting the barrier to entry somewhat high does help to keep out the "kooks" after all.

All that said, don't be discouraged and best of luck with your chosen field of research. If you do decide to turn to EEG feel free to contact me directly for more information or perhaps even to collaborate.

Cheers!

Interesting. I posted much of the above information to the original article, and the content of the post now appears to have been censored:

cyconx

April 27, 2010 01:17:59 GMT

\

Almost all of the degrees of freedom come from head motion and muscle artifact. EEG is very sensitive to facial muscle artifacts, and when you actually record EEG the patients have to keep very still.

The larger problem with the Emotiv EPOC headset is that the EEG sensor locations it provides do not match up to where "real" Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) research is focused. So even if you wanted to do control by "pure thought" alone the best-known areas of the brain where these signals are located are not measurable by the Emotiv EPOC.

Electrode placement is based on an international standard called the "10-20" system:

http://www.bci2000.org/wiki/index.php/User_Tutorial:EEG_Measurement_Setup#The_10-20_International_System

Most BCI applications focus on "imagined" movements around the right arm or hand, left arm or hand, and feet. The parts of the brain which produces electrical signals when neurons related to these extremities fire are located in the C3 and C4 sections of the top of the scalp in the diagram at that URL. Another important location is the "Cz" sensor at the exact top of the crown.

Unfortunately however, the key Cz, C3, and C4 electrode locations (going by the 10-20 scale) right/left/feet motor control are not available on the Emotiv hardware. Instead their hardware provides electrodes in the following 10-20 locations:

AF3, F7, F3, FC5, T7, P7, O1, O2, P8, T8, FC6, F4, F8, AF4

My understanding, based on discussions with Emotiv, is that they designed their headset with as many unique channels of information as possible, at the best price/feature ratio, which would fit the most number of potential users in a one-size-fits-all form factor. This last restraint prevented them from Cz, C3, and C4 because the exact locations from user to user were not consistent enough to be relied upon in a consumer setting (their target market). Locations for an adult would not be the same as an adolescent user, and getting the locations lined up precisely is "too hard" for the casual or non-technical public.

So in other words, if you want as fine-grained control by thought alone as the current state of technology allows, you'll have to wait for a updated EEG headset model from Emotiv or another manufacturer - or of course learn how to build your own from the .

Here is a similar project using the same Emotiv EPOC headset to control LEGO Mindstorms robots via EEG:

http://brainstorms.puzzlebox.info/

YouTube video link

(disclaimer: yes, I'm the project lead)