Skip to content
Back to the collection

BrainNet: A Multi-Person Brain-to-Brain Interface for Direct Collaboration Between Brains

Linxing Preston Jiang, Andrea Stocco, Darby M. Losey

Show all 6 authors

Justin A. Abernethy, Chantel S. Prat, Rajesh P. N. Rao

2018 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
3
Readers
3
Months
3
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

We present BrainNet which, to our knowledge, is the first multi-person non-invasive direct brain-to-brain interface for collaborative problem solving. The interface combines electroencephalography (EEG) to record brain signals and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to deliver information noninvasively to the brain. The interface allows three human subjects to collaborate and solve a task using direct brain-to-brain communication. Two of the three subjects are "Senders" whose brain signals are decoded using real-time EEG data analysis to extract decisions about whether to rotate a block in a Tetris-like game before it is dropped to fill a line. The Senders' decisions are transmitted via the Internet to the brain of a third subject, the "Receiver," who cannot see the game screen. The decisions are delivered to the Receiver's brain via magnetic stimulation of the occipital cortex. The Receiver integrates the information received and makes a decision using an EEG interface about either turning the block or keeping it in the same position. A second round of the game gives the Senders one more chance to validate and provide feedback to the Receiver's action. We evaluated the performance of BrainNet in terms of (1) Group-level performance during the game; (2) True/False positive rates of subjects' decisions; (3) Mutual information between subjects. Five groups of three subjects successfully used BrainNet to perform the Tetris task, with an average accuracy of 0.813. Furthermore, by varying the information reliability of the Senders by artificially injecting noise into one Sender's signal, we found that Receivers are able to learn which Sender is more reliable based solely on the information transmitted to their brains. Our results raise the possibility of future brain-to-brain interfaces that enable cooperative problem solving by humans using a "social network" of connected brains.

Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

3 selected excerpts · 3 total mentions

nl
Neutral mention · rule
> They can transmit thoughts directly into your head... via a computer monitor. > They call it a "a brain-to-brain interface", doesn't that imply one brain is wired directly to another electrically? The actual paper summary is better: > Two of the three subjects are "Senders" whose brain signals are decoded using real-time EEG data analysis to extract decisions about whether to rotate a block in a Tetris-like game before it is dropped to fill a line. The Senders' decisions are transmitted via the Internet to the brain of a third subject, the "Receiver," who cannot see the game screen. The decisions are delivered to the Receiver's brain via magnetic stimulation of the…
Read the full comment
occipital cortex. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08632 I don't think "a brain-to-brain interface" implies wiring the brains together at all. To me it means transmitting information that bypasses the traditional human communication channels - and this certainly does because it's read via the EEGs and then sent to the reciever via magnetic stimulation. There is no information sent between people via the screen. The senders see the full game, and send their decision via magnetic stimulation to the receiver. The "flashing lights" are ONLY seen by the senders, and used to stimulate the senders brains to send signals that can be read by the EEG. From the paper: Senders focused their attention on a “Yes” LED light flashing at 17 Hz placed on the left side of their computer screen; to convey a "Do Not Rotate" decision, they focused on the “No” LED light flashing at 15 Hz placed on the right side. These LEDs are depicted as circles attached to the screens in Figure 1. The cursor position provided real-time visual feedback to the Senders. The direction of movement of the cursor was determined by comparing the EEG power at 17 Hz versus 15 Hz, with a higher power at 17 Hz over that at 15 Hz moving the cursor towards the left side near the “Yes” LED, and vice-versa for the "No" LED The decisions of the two Senders were sent to the Receiver’s computer through a TCP/IP network and were further translated into two pulses of transcranial magentic stimulation (TMS) delivered sequentially to the occipital cortex of the Receiver. Each TMS pulse lasted 1 ms. An eight-second delay was enforced between the two pulses to remain within the strictest safety guidelines of TMS stimulation29. The intensity of the stimulation was set above or below the threshold at which the Receiver could perceive a flash of light known as a phosphene: a “Yes” response was translated to an intensity above the threshold, and “No” was translated to an intensity below the threshold. During each round of trials, the Receiver always received the decision from one Sender first, then the other. The screen the Receiver saw also had visual prompts to remind them whose decision the current TMS stimulation was conveying. Receivers made their decision based on whether a phosphene was perceived and conveyed their decision (rotate or do not rotate) to the game using the same SSVEP-based procedure used by both Senders. After the game state was updated, the trial moved into the second round and the above process was repeated. So there was no physical light flash for the receiver - their brain was just stimulated so they would perceive one.
deepstack
Neutral mention · rule
Well, we can already use fMRI (maybe EEG as well) or PET scan to read the structure of people's thoughts. And researchers already have done BrainNet, A Multi-Person Brain-to-Brain Interface https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08632 Science doesn't stay still. Given these it is no surprise that lay person think that this is possible.
nabla9
Neutral mention · rule
https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08632 If I understood the paper correctly, the results are totally unimpressive. The experiment setting seems to me to be intentionally convoluted to sound impressive. Like it's just creative bullshitting. This is how it works: (Edited after scribu corrected me) 1. Senders make a decision by concentrating on flashing lights. They use EEG-cap to capture difference in spectral power between light flashing 17Hz and 15 Hz using the Welch's method. The choice is difference averaged over several epochs in 10-second period (must be very low paced game). Lots of signal processing and averaging to get yes/no answer between bright 17Hz and 15Hz visual…
Read the full comment
signal from steady state visually evoked potentials. 2. This one bit of information was then conveyed to the Receiver using TMS using signal where 10 consecutive pulses is yes, absence of pulses is no. Thresholds are well calibrated beforehand so that yes/no can transmitted. Receivers gets TMS signal that is completely different from what Senders did.

Keep following the thread.

More in Neuroscience

More from the same topics.