DARPA's Cortically-Coupled Computer Vision System 145
BluePariah writes "Wired News has an article on a 'cortically coupled computer vision' system being developed at Columbia University and funded by the ever-curious folks at DARPA. Essentially, it uses the extremely powerful visual recognition ability of the human brain and couples it with a computer's raw processing power to allow a user wearing an EEG cap to filter through scores of digital images at high-speed and pick out something of interest. This has applications in military intelligence, face-recognition, anti-terrorism, and hunting down replicants."
Commercially viable. (Score:3, Funny)
The TV networks will love this!
Re:Commercially viable. (Score:1)
truth serum (Score:2)
2) grab a focus group, play them your Jingle or TV commercial or sound bite. Assess subliminal recognition
3) video game: good guy or bad guy that just moved too quickly to see.
4) soldiers on guard duty.
5) people looking through intel data for links, trying to process more info than their brains can recall.
Re:Commercially viable. (Score:3, Funny)
pr0n (Score:5, Funny)
[...] allow a user wearing an EEG cap to filter through scores of digital images at high-speed and pick out something of interest.
hi-speed pr0n!
Re:pr0n (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:pr0n (Score:2, Funny)
Then I wonder what happens when they are shown an image of a scantily clad female whos backside is exploding with some new technologically advanced orange juice delivery system?
*shudder*
Re:pr0n (Score:2)
BTW, it was pumpkin soup.
Re:pr0n (Score:2)
Re:pr0n (Score:2)
Al Gore, where are you? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Al Gore, where are you? (Score:2)
[*Sigh* -- not this again.]
Al Gore never claimed that he "invented" the internet. In a March 1999 interview, Wolf Blitzer asked Gore what distinguished him from one of his opponents (Bill Bradley) for the Democratic presidential nomination. Gore responded by describing how he "took the initiative" on a number of issues, including "creating the internet". In context, he was talking
Re:Al Gore, where are you? (Score:2)
Next stop... (Score:5, Interesting)
Say it with me now... Porn!
Re:Next stop... (Score:3, Funny)
Wait. How is this better than when I used to sneak down into the living room as a kid to watch still-scrambled skin flicks on cable?
Re:Next stop... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, now you can scan through your entire porn collection and pick out the things you want to see, much faster than doing a search. Imagine hooking this up to your browser and surfing through porn websites brought up by a Google search -- you could find what you're looking for instantly!
Mind you, I'm sure DARPA didn't have this in mind when they thought it up. They probably want to hunt fro troops, missiles, terrorists, etc. Bu
soiled trousers (Score:2)
Re:soiled trousers (Score:2)
But it would be SOP to disrobe before engaging the device. You know the military -- everythign by the book!
Re:Next stop... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Next stop... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Next stop... (Score:2)
Re:Next stop... (Score:3, Funny)
(. . . waiting for the mod points to roll on in. . . )
Pick out something of interest? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I'd imagine then that the results would vary from user to user. So would this system require the "right" person then for testing and calibration? Very interesting indeed.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]In the small print... (Score:5, Funny)
What about the unparalleled power of the brain? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about the unparalleled power of the brain? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:What about the unparalleled power of the brain? (Score:1)
I recently read a book* exploring the early origins of personal computing. Doug Engelbart, a researcher, envisioned computers augmenting the human mind (tools) rather than replacing it (i.e. articial intellgiences). This system sounds like a one more step in fufilling his vision.
This book here [amazon.com]
Re:What about the unparalleled power of the brain? (Score:2)
Who else thinks this needs to be tagged "creepy?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Gives a shuddersome new meaning to human resources.
Re:What about the unparalleled power of the brain? (Score:2)
Has anyone else read "Deepness in the Sky" by Vernor Vinge? This sounds frighteningly like the "focus" technology the Bad Guys (TM) use in that book.
Evan
How is this different from security guards? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How is this different from security guards? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How is this different from security guards? (Score:1)
Re:How is this different from security guards? (Score:5, Funny)
Note: This is currently a fictional scenario, but in one hundred years when this is actually going on, someone will stumble upon this post and realize how very forward-thinking I was...
Re:How is this different from security guards? (Score:2)
hee hee hee...
Re:How is this different from security guards? (Score:3, Informative)
Why use test tube babies when you can just use Slashdotters?
Re:How is this different from security guards? (Score:2)
Not if they've read Vernor Vinge's "Fire Upon the Deep". Highly recommended, BTW. One of the best 5 SF books I have read in my life, and I've read a lot.
Re:How is this different from security guards? (Score:2)
Re:How is this different from security guards? (Score:2)
MIB1: Hmm, well, we didn't get the terrorist, but we did harvest 1394 security camera images of attractive women bending over to pick things up.
MIB2: We should expand the program.
Re:How is this different from security guards? (Score:2)
And they still can't find Waldo.
Re:How is this different from security guards? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How is this different from security guards? (Score:1)
Re:How is this different from security guards? (Score:1)
One would have enough with one bit of humanity, to differ 2 kinds of people - those who know binary and those who don't.
While probaply you require 2^10 to define a single standard for HTML
Re:How is this different from security guards? (Score:1)
FTFY.
Just what we need. (Score:1)
positive use of subliminal message (Score:3, Interesting)
Uses (Score:2)
I don't know what replicants is, other then this Replicant [imdb.com] (but who would want that).
This has HUGE applications in finding that perfect pr0n pic.
Re:Uses (Score:2)
Motion to revoke geek liscense (Score:4, Funny)
Shees, next it's going to be 2001, The Time Machine, and Ice Pirates
Wait, wrong argument
to allow this affrontery to continue will undoubtably lead to the end of Western Culture as we know it, for without due veneration of our classical arts, we shall indeed be doomed to an eternity of Jerry Springer and Teletubbies. Oh the humanity of it all.
Re:Motion to revoke geek liscense (Score:2)
Re:Motion to revoke geek liscense (Score:2)
Leave those replicants alone (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, they are only guilty of DNA copyright infringement! It's not like it's an actual crime, bud!
So only now they come up with this? (Score:2)
Pop-culture (Score:1)
Furthermore, can you say porn?
Re:Pop-culture (Score:2)
Replicants (Score:4, Informative)
The IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/ [imdb.com]
The move is based on the work of Phillip K. Dick. It also stars Harrison Ford in his least favorite role.
Re:Replicants (Score:1)
I'd be careful with my references to this guy.
Re:Replicants (Score:1)
Re:God damnit..... (Score:2)
Re:Replicants (Score:2)
Well, considering that he's hooked up with Calista Flockhart in real life - I think his ability to tell the different between good and 'sack of antlers' is marginal at best.
Completely back-to-front (Score:5, Insightful)
So, basically completely the opposite to the /. description, to whit:
.I picked that up within 5 seconds of clicking the link. Sort it out, editors.
Re:Completely back-to-front (Score:3, Insightful)
Count me out (Score:2)
Seriously though, go to istockphoto.com and look at how they categorize images. It's called keywords, and it's amazing. People sort the images by looking at them, and then type words to describe the image.
Interesting research though, but this sounds more like UI land rather than new kind of processing land.
Re:Completely back-to-front (Score:2)
... hunting ... is right! (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, I've seen this one before
But maybe, Coyotes are just funny like that!
Slaved by machines ???.. (Score:1)
Computer hardware that uses your brain, thats sound dangerous. Some people think some radio singnals of mobiles are bad, but this is much more worse. What would do this to the human spirit?
humans are not a set of tools to be used in computer hardware this is dangerous technology. It should be the other way, we should use computers to do our things.
Don't let someone else use your brain fo
why not let someone else have a try. (Score:1)
If paranoid luddites who have delusions of this technology making us into Borg aren't using their brains, why not let someone else make some good use of wasted grey matter?
Re:why not let someone else have a try. (Score:1)
Re:Slaved by machines ???.. (Score:2)
God didn't make humans to become slaves of machines.
You are right.
God didn't make humans. It was the FSM with its noodly appendage.
And we are supposed to be pirates, not slaves, arrrr.
Re:Slaved by machines ???.. (Score:2)
How is it slavery? Its completely voluntary.
Thorazine (Score:2)
Stat.
Re:Slaved by machines ???.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Guess what, every interface is just a way to get brain impulses from your brain to the computer (OMFG, run for the hills!) Whether my fingers happen to be in between doesn't really matter to me. If I co
sounds frustrating (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds to me a bit frustrating for the user.
Imaging sitting there for an hour or more, looking at endless streams of boring security footage. Every time something interesting flashed by, the machine would record the brain activity, but the stream would just continue. Say you saw the image of a known terrorist flash by, it seems to be human nature would make you want to take a closer look - natural reaction would be to want to pay a little more attention. Unless the stream of images slows down a little when a "hit" is registered, the whole process would be a bit of a tease.
Re:sounds frustrating (Score:1)
1. shopping mall frequented by young women, perhaps near to a beach
2. security cameras placed a little above head height pointing down a bit
3. hot day
90% of the footage will be flagged as "interesting" because of all the cleavage on show
Re:sounds frustrating (Score:2)
Women don't want you to look at their chest.
So they put on a shirt with a deep "V" cut showing bare flesh.
Then they deride you for looking at their chest.
I think if a men wore shirts cut like women, women would look at the men's chest too. It is hard not to look at this big "flesh arrow".
Re:sounds frustrating (Score:2)
Better analogy: If men wore pants cut like women's shirts, with a big v-shaped exposed area just above, well, you know...
I don't know if women generally find men's chests as interesting as men generally find women's chests.Re:sounds frustrating (Score:2)
I did get a joke card for a friend once that talked about a guys face but he really buff and shirtless and inside it had a punchline like *his FACE
Re:sounds frustrating (Score:1)
SETI@brain? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SETI@brain? (Score:2)
Artificial vision for the blind? (Score:1, Offtopic)
I imagine if this is the case, then connecting it to a camera worn by the user can possibly allow the person to see again.
Re:Artificial vision for the blind? (Score:2)
I've got one of these hats. (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder if IXO is involved (Score:4, Interesting)
Creatives need this... (Score:2)
This could cut it down to minutes. I'd just sketch out the image I was looking for and stare at it for a few... then turn on and tune out for a few, voila... instant banner ad
This Has Been Done Before... (Score:2)
The end of the 'analog hole'? (Score:4, Funny)
Don't tell the MPAA! By feeding digital images directly into the brain of the viewer, they've finally managed to get rid of that nasty analog hole [wikipedia.org] that pirates are always exploiting.
Now all we need (Score:2, Funny)
Standard EEG Brain-computer interface (Score:1)
What is the CCCVS? (Score:3, Funny)
To hack through captchas for porn. It really is the hive mind.
EEG Subconscious Human Bias (Score:2)
What else about a person can this EEG cap measure? Can one correllate what one is looking at with what one is thinking? Will there be a measureable response if the person looks at another individual and find
Scary (Score:2)
Blade Runner? psh. Brainstorm! (Score:2)
Might actually work... but a few issues (Score:4, Informative)
One main theory on how our brain does this, Feature Integration Theory by Anne Treisman (or similar but more recent, Guided Search by Jeremy Wolfe), which many computer vision algorithms try to copy, asserts that there are various feature maps for certain quantities like color, orientation, depth, spatial scale, etc. These are combined into a saliency map which is a weighted average of the feature maps. Things pop-out when the target has high salience compare to the background, for example it's easy to find the red T in a background of blue T's, but not so easy to find the red L in a background of red T's and blue L's.
Now, it appears from the article, and what little they say on the Lab webpage, that they are trying to measure EEG responses (which are quite crude) during rapid serial search tasks, in order to prime a computer vision object recognition system, which is then only run on those images human's appear to find sufficintly salient when they see them. This saves the time of a person actually having to search and make a decision about an image, while utilizing the visual systems incredibly powerful early 'pre-attentive' form & object binding resources.
If there is a sufficiently high signal from the EEG to do that after say, 100ms display times, then I think this could be useful for certain types of search task. However, due to the time courses present in most visual search experiments, the fact that it's not totally apparent how efficient certain parts of our saliency system actually are (check our Jeremy Wolfe's reviews for more data), I'm totally unconvinced that this type of system will give you a sufficent signal to noise ratio to be worth using for anything. This is especially true because of another perceptual phenomenon in search, which is that your error rate basically shoots up exponentially as the probability of a positive goes down. This is to say, in an experiment where a normal observer would have a 99% accuracy rate with 50% of the images containing the target, this drops to 60% accuracy for 10% target positive, and only 30% accuracy at 1% target positive (numbers fudged, but ballpark, since I'm too lazy to look them up). If this has its roots in insufficient priming in early vision, for example, then this entire scheme flops just as badly as using a human for tasks like finding the bomb in the x-ray image of the suitcase... and we haven't even started to get into issues of the person not actually looking at the image because they're bored, etc.
As it is, DARPA is spending a mere 758k, which is chump change for them, and there's a decent chance that it'll work in certain specific but useful circumstances which may warrant the research.
Ghost in the Shell 2 (Score:2)
I went there once (Score:1)
Try digg (Score:3, Funny)
That an insult to the monkeys (Score:5, Funny)
Monkeys banging on keyboards (Score:1, Offtopic)
Those must be pretty small monkeys, in order to fit two of them on a keyboard to make love. Golden lion marmosets, I presume?
Not "Watchers" but "Scanners" (Score:2)
I suspect Phillip K. Dick [philipkdick.com] was a time traveller who escaped into the past to try and warn us.
But
We
Just
Won't
Listen