-->
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Brain-Computer Interface (BCI). Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Brain-Computer Interface (BCI). Tampilkan semua postingan

Kamis, 16 Maret 2017

The Entrepreneur with the $100 Million Plan to Link Brains to Computers

The Entrepreneur with the $100 Million Plan to Link Brains to Computers

  • ILLUSTRATION BY KEITH RANKIN
  • Rewriting Life

    Via MIT Tech Review

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603771/the-entrepreneur-with-the-100-million-plan-to-link-brains-to-computers/






    Tech big shots are charging into neuroscience, but do they even have a clue?
    Entrepreneur Bryan Johnson says he wanted to become very rich in order to do something great for humankind.
    Last year Johnson, founder of the online payments company Braintree, starting making news when he threw $100 million behind Kernel, a startup he founded to enhance human intelligence by developing brain implants capable of linking people’s thoughts to computers.
    Johnson isn’t alone in believing that “neurotechnology” could be the next big thing. To many in Silicon Valley, the brain looks like an unconquered frontier whose importance dwarfs any achievement made in computing or the Web.
    According to neuroscientists, several figures from the tech sector are currently scouring labs across the U.S. for technology that might fuse human and artificial intelligence. In addition to Johnson, Elon Musk has been teasing a project called “neural lace,” which he said at a 2016 conference will lead to “symbiosis with machines.” And Mark Zuckerberg declared in a 2015 Q&A that people will one day be able to share “full sensory and emotional experiences,” not just photos. Facebook has been hiring neuroscientists for an undisclosed project at Building 8, its secretive hardware division.
    As these people see it, computing keeps achieving new heights, but our ability to interface with silicon is stuck in the keyboard era. Even when speaking to a computer program like Alexa or Siri, you can convey at most about 40 bits per second of information and only for short bursts. Compare that to data transfer records of a trillion bits per second along a fiber-optic cable.
    “Ridiculously slow,” Musk complained.
    But it turns out that connecting to the brain isn’t so easy. Six months after launching Kernel amid a media blitz, Johnson says he’s dropped his initial plans for a “memory implant,” switched scientific advisors, hired a new team, and decided to instead invest in developing a more general-purpose technology for recording and stimulating the brain using electrodes.
    Johnson says the switch-up is part of trying something new. “If you look at the key contributing technologies of society, the ones with the most impact, like rockets, the Internet, biology—there was a transition point from academia to the private sector, and for the most part neuroscience hasn’t made that jump,” says Johnson. “The most critical element is timing, when is the right time to pursue this.”
    Memory implants
    After making a fortune selling Braintree to eBay for $800 million in 2013, Johnson, now 39, reportedly sought the advice of nearly 200 people on how to invest his new wealth. He settled on neurotechnology and, last August, he announced he’d create Kernel and build the first neural prosthetic for human intelligence enhancement.
    But Johnson’s business plan was extremely vague; one scientist called it “metaphysical.” Kernel’s website was plastered with book-jacket-like endorsements from scientific celebrities including J. Craig Venter and Tim O’Reilly, extolling his “great” and “serious” commitment to understanding human intelligence, not to mention the impressive $100 million he later promised to invest in Kernel.
    Bryan Johnson
    The reality is that interfacing with the brain is tough: electronics irritate its tissue and stop working after a while, and no one will get brain surgery just in order to send an e-mail. What’s more, even if you can communicate with the brain, you might not know what it is saying.
    “Billionaires entering the broader neurotechnology field are very optimistic and may overlook details of the problem, which is we are far away from meaningfully understanding the brain,” says Konrad Kording, a Northwestern University neuroscientist who has advised Johnson. “But neurotechnology allows you to work on the most interesting questions in the universe while potentially making money, and so that is exciting.”
    Johnson’s persona is part buttoned-down Mormon missionary (he once was one), part hard-driving door-to-door credit-processing salesman (he was that too), but now, with his new wealth, he’s also taken on the mantle of a technology prophet. At a 2016 startup conference in Silicon Valley, he showed up with his hair unbrushed, wearing a T-shirt with holes in it, and gave a wide-ranging lecture on human tool use from prehistory into the present, arguing that now “our very existence is programmable” through biology and machine interfaces.
    Kernel’s original technology was a memory prosthesis, developed by Theodore Berger of the University of Southern California, who until recently was also the company’s chief scientific officer. Berger’s technology (see “10 Breakthrough Technologies: Memory Implants”) is a way of recording memories of rats and monkeys, storing these patterns on a computer chip, and re-delivering them to the hippocampus. One version of the setup, Berger says, has been tested in a handful of human patients undergoing brain surgery for other reasons.
    But a mere six months after starting Kernel, Berger is no longer part of the company, and memory implants are no longer part of Kernel’s near-term plans. Johnson and Berger both confirmed the separation.
    Berger’s vision, according to several people, was too complex, too speculative, and too far from becoming a medical reality, while Johnson hoped to see a return on his investment sometime soon. “They have a new direction, but we’re still talking,” says Berger. “The basic reason is it was going to take too long. It’s one thing to think about this and quite another to do it.”
    Johnson says he concluded that Berger’s work “is really interesting, but not an entry point” into a commercially viable business.
    Brain interface
    By last November, Johnson was already exploring a pivot for his company, meeting with Christian Wentz, head of a small Cambridge startup, Kendall Research Systems, that sells equipment for recording in the neurons of mice and other animals. The company spun out of the laboratory of Edward Boyden, a professor at MIT who invents new ways of analyzing brain tissue.  
    In February, Johnson acquired Wentz’s company (for an undisclosed sum) and with it brought in a new team, including Wentz and Adam Marblestone, a noted theorist of both the limitations and possibilities of brain interfaces, who will become chief scientific officer. Both are former Boyden lab members, as are two other Kernel scientists, Caroline Moore-Kochlacs and Jake Bernstein.

    Johnson says Kernel will now develop a “generalized human electrophysiology platform”—that is, a flexible way of measuring the electrical impulses from many neurons at once, and stimulating them, too. The eventual objective is to use such electronics to treat major diseases, like depression or Alzheimer’s. “It’s for clinical use,” he says. “We are a for-profit company.”  
    Wentz says as part of the acquisition he and Johnson agreed that much more R&D on brain interfaces will probably be needed. “We have a very sober view of what can and can’t be done,” Wentz says. “We are not naïve.” He calls Kernel’s effort a “15-year endeavor,” although he adds that “we want to do in that period what has been done in the last 100 years.”
    With the pivot, Johnson is effectively jumping on an opportunity created by the Brain Initiative, an Obama-era project which plowed money into new schemes for recording neurons. That influx of cash has spurred the formation of several other startups, including Paradromics and Cortera, also developing novel hardware for collecting brain signals. As part of the government brain project, the defense R&D agency DARPA says it is close to announcing $60 million in contracts under a program to create a “high-fidelity” brain interface able to simultaneously record from one million neurons (the current record is about 200) and stimulate 100,000 at a time.
    “It’s time for neuroscience to graduate from academia to a general neuroscience platform,” says Johnson. With such a technology “a whole range of new applications—a lot of white space—would open up.”
    Johnson declined to describe the specifics of Kernel’s technological approach to connecting with the brain, as did Boyden and Wentz. However, the team members have been working on well-identified problems. Wentz has been involved with developing electronics for high-speed reading of data emitted by wireless implants. Already, the flow of information that can be collected from a mouse’s brain in real time outruns what a laptop computer can handle. The team also needs a way to interface with the human brain. Boyden’s lab has worked on several concepts to do so, including needle-shaped probes with tiny electrodes etched onto their surface. Another idea is to record neural activity by threading tiny optical fibers through the brain’s capillaries, an idea roughly similar to Musk’s neural lace.

    More sophisticated means of reading and writing to the brain are seen as potential ways to treat psychiatric disorders. Under a concept that Boyden calls “brain coprocessors,” it may be possible to create closed-loop systems that detect certain brain signals—say, those associated with depression—and shock the brain to reverse them. Some surgeons and doctors funded by another DARPA program are in the early stages of determining whether serious mental conditions can be treated in this way (see “A Shocking Way to Fix the Brain”).
    Boyden says Johnson’s $100 million makes a big difference to how he and his students view the entrepreneur’s goals. “A lot of neurotechnology has come and gone. But one thing is that it’s very expensive,” he says. “The inventing is expensive, the clinical work is expensive. It’s not easy. And here is someone putting money into the game.”

    Rabu, 15 Maret 2017

    How to ensure future brain technologies will help and not harm society

    How to ensure future brain technologies will help and not harm society


    A boy who was addicted to the internet, has his brain scanned for research purposes at Daxing Internet Addiction Treatment Center in Beijing February 22, 2014.  As growing numbers of young people in China immerse themselves in the cyber world, spending hours playing games online, worried parents are increasingly turning to boot camps to crush addiction. Military-style boot camps, designed to wean young people off their addiction to the internet, number as many as 250 in China alone. Picture taken February 22, 2014. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon (CHINA - Tags: SOCIETY)ATTENTION EDITORS - PICTURE 21 OF 33 FOR PACKAGE 'CURING CHINA'S INTERNET ADDICTS'TO FIND ALL IMAGES SEARCH 'INTERNET BOOT CAMP' - RTR3WL7Y
    We need a more informed public debate on neuroscience
    Image: REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon 
    Written by
    Murali Doraiswamy, Professor, Duke University Health System
    Hermann Garden, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
    David Winickoff, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
    Wednesday 1 March 2017
    Thomas Edison, one of the great minds of the second industrial revolution, once said that “the chief function of the body is to carry the brain around.” Understanding the human brain – how it works, and how it is afflicted by diseases and disorders – is an important frontier in science and society today.
    Advances in neuroscience and technology increasingly impact intellectual wellbeing, education, business, and social norms. Recent findings confirm the plasticity of the brain over the individual’s life. Imaging technologies and brain stimulation technologies are opening up totally new approaches in treating disease and potentially augmenting cognitive capacity. Unravelling the brain’s many secrets will have profound societal implications that require a closer “contract” between science and society.

    Convergence across physical science, engineering, biological science, social science and humanities has boosted innovation in brain science and technological innovation. It offers large potential for a systems biology approach to unify heterogeneous data from “omics” tools, imaging technologies such as fMRI, and behavioural science. 

    Citizen science – the convergence between science and society – already proved successful in EyeWire where people competed to map the 1,000-neuron connectome of the mouse retina. Also, the use of nanoparticles as coating of implanted abiotic devices offers great potential to improve the immunologic acceptance of invasive diagnostics. Brain-inspired neuromorphic engineering aims to develop novel computer systems with brain-like characteristics, including low energy consumption, adequate fault tolerance, self-learning capabilities, and some sort of intelligence. Here, the convergence of nanotechnology with neuroscience could help building neuro-inspired computer chips; brain-machine interfaces and robots with artificial intelligence systems.
    Future opportunities for cognitive enhancement for improved attentiveness, memory, decision making, and control through, for example, non-invasive brain stimulation and neural implants have raised, and shall continue to raise, profound ethical, legal, and social questions. What is societally acceptable and desirable, both now and in the future? 

    At a recent OECD workshop, we identified five possible systemic changes that could help speed up neurotechnology developments to meet pressing health challenges and societal needs.

    1. Responsible research
    There is growing interest in discussing and unpacking the ethical and societal aspects of brain science as the technologies and applications are developed. Much can be learned from other experiences in disruptive innovation. The international Human Genome Project (1990-2003), for example, was one of the earlier large-scale initiatives in which social scientists worked in parallel with the natural sciences in order to consider the ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) of their work. 
    The deliberation of ELSI and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in nanotechnologies is another example of how societies, in some jurisdictions, have approached R&D activities, and the role of the public in shaping, or at least informing, their trajectory. RRI knits together activities that previously seemed sporadic. According to Jack Stilgoe, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, the aim of responsible innovation is to connect the practice of research and innovation in the present to the futures that it promises. 
    Frameworks, such as ELSI and RRI should more actively engage patients and patient organisations early in the development cycle, and in a meaningful way. This could be achieved through continuous public platforms and policy discussion instead of traditional one-off public engagement and the deliberation of scientific advances and ELSI through culture and art. 
    Research funders – public agencies, private investors, foundations, as well as universities themselves – are particularly well positioned to shape trajectories of technology and society. Through their funding power, they have unique capacity to help place scientific work within social, ethical, and regulatory contexts. 
    It is an opportune time for funders to: 1) strengthen the array of approaches and mechanisms for building a robust and meaningful neurotechnology landscape that meaningfully engages human values and is informed by it; 2) discuss options to foster open and responsible innovation; and 3) better understand the opportunities and challenges for building joint initiatives in research and product development.
    2. Anticipatory governance
    Society and industry would benefit from earlier, and more inclusive, discussions about the ethical, legal and social implications of how neurotechnologies are being developed and their entry onto the market. For example, the impact of neuromodulatory devices that promise to enhance cognition, alter mood, or improve physical performance on human dignity, privacy, and equitable access could be considered earlier in the research and development process.
    3. Open innovation
    Given the significant investment risks and high failure rates of clinical trials in central nervous systems disorders, companies could adopt more open innovation approaches in which public and private stakeholders actively collaborate, share assets including intellectual property, and invest together.
    4. Avoiding neuro-hype
    Popular media is full of colourful brain images used to illustrate stories about neuroscience. Unproven health claims, including those which give rise to so-called ‘neuro-hype’ and ‘neuro-myths’. Misinformation is a strong possibility where scientific work potentially carries major social implications (for example, work on mental illness, competency, intelligence, etc). 
    It has the potential to result in public mistrust and to undermine the formation of markets. There is a need for evidence-based policies and guidelines to help the responsible development and use of neurotechnology in medical practice and in over-the-counter products. Policymakers and regulators could lead the development of a clear path to translate neurotechnology discoveries into human health advantages that are commercially viable and sustainable.
    5. Access and equity
    Policymakers should discuss the socio-economic questions raised by neurotechnology. Rising disparities in access to often high-priced medical innovation require tailored solutions for poorer countries. The development of public-private partnerships and simplification of technology help access to innovation in resource-limited countries.
    In addition to helping people with neurological and psychiatric disorders, the biggest cause of disability worldwide, neurotechnologies will shape every aspect of society in the future. A roadmap for guiding responsible research and innovation in neurotechnology may be transformative.

    Kamis, 02 Maret 2017

    Steering A Turtle With Your Thoughts

    Steering A Turtle With Your Thoughts



    Researchers have developed a technology that can remotely control an animal’s movement with human thought. 

    Asian Scientist Newsroom | March 2, 2017 | Technology AsianScientist (Mar. 2, 2017) 

    Researchers at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) have developed a brain-computer interface (BCI) that can control a turtle using human thought. Their findings have been published in the Journal of Bionic Engineering. 

    Unlike previous research—most notably in insects—that has tried to control animal movement by applying invasive methods Professors Lee Phill-Seung and Jo Sungho of KAIST propose a conceptual system that can guide an animal’s moving path by controlling its instinctive escape behavior. 

    They chose a turtle because of its cognitive abilities as well as its ability to distinguish different wavelengths of light. Specifically, turtles can recognize a white light source as an open space and so move toward it. They also show specific avoidance behavior to things that might obstruct their view. 

    Turtles also move toward and away from obstacles in their environment in a predictable manner. The entire human-turtle setup is as follows: A head-mounted display (HMD) is combined with a BCI to immerse the human user in the turtle’s environment. The human operator wears the BCI-HMD system, while the turtle has a ‘cyborg system’—consisting of a camera, Wi-Fi transceiver, computer control module, and battery—all mounted on the turtle’s upper shell. Also included on the turtle’s shell is a black semi-cylinder with a slit, which forms the ‘stimulation device.’ This can be turned ±36 degrees via the BCI. The human operator receives images from the camera mounted on the turtle. These real-time video images allow the human operator to decide where the turtle should move. The human provides thought commands that are recognized by the wearable BCI system as electroencephalography signals. The BCI can distinguish between three mental states: left, right, and idle. The left and right commands activate the turtle’s stimulation device via Wi-Fi, turning it so that it obstructs the turtle’s view. This invokes its natural instinct to move toward light and change its direction. 

    Finally, the human acquires updated visual feedback from the camera mounted on the shell and in this way continues to remotely navigate the turtle’s trajectory. The researchers demonstrates the animal guiding BCI in a variety of environments, with turtles moving indoors and outdoors on many different surfaces, like gravel and grass, and tackling a range of obstacles, such as shallow water and trees. This technology could be developed to integrate positioning systems and improved augmented and virtual reality techniques, enabling various applications, including devices for military reconnaissance and surveillance. 

    The article can be found at: Kim et al. (2016) Remote Navigation of Turtle by Controlling Instinct Behavior via Human Brain-computer Interface

    Source: Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Disclaimer: This article does not necessarily reflect the views of AsianScientist or its staff. Read more from Asian Scientist Magazine at: https://www.asianscientist.com/2017/03/tech/turtle-human-brain-computer-interface/

    Kamis, 23 Februari 2017

    Brain–Computer Interface Allows Speediest Typing to Date

    Brain–Computer Interface Allows Speediest Typing to Date

    Via Scientific American -- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-computer-interface-allows-speediest-typing-to-date/
    A new interface system allowed three paralyzed individuals to type words up to four times faster than the speed that had been demonstrated in earlier studies
    A participant enrolled by Stanford University in the BrainGate clinical trial uses the brain-computer interface to type by controlling a computer cursor with her thoughts. Credit: Courtesy Stanford University
    Ten years ago Dennis Degray’s life changed forever when he slipped and fell while taking out the trash in the rain. He landed on his chin, causing a severe spinal cord injury that left him paralyzed below the neck. Now he’s the star participant in an investigative trial of a system that aims to help people with paralysis type words using only their thoughts.
    The promise of brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) for restoring function to people with disabilities has driven researchers for decades, yet few devices are ready for widespread practical use. Several obstacles exist, depending on the application. For typing, however, one important barrier has been reaching speeds sufficient to justify adopting the technology, which usually involves surgery. A study published Tuesday in eLife reports the results of a system that enabled three participants—Degray and two people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, a neurodegenerative disease that causes progressive paralysis)—to type at the fastest speeds yet achieved using a BCI—speeds that bring the technology within reach of being practically useful. “We're approaching half of what, for example, I could probably type on a cell phone,” says neurosurgeon and co-senior author, Jaimie Henderson of Stanford University.
    The researchers measured performance using three tasks. To demonstrate performance in the most natural scenario possible, one participant was assessed in a “free typing” task, where she just answered questions using the device. But typing speeds are conventionally measured using copy typing, which involves typing out set phrases, so all three participants were also assessed this way. The woman who performed the free-typing task achieved faster than six words-per-minute, the other ALS patient managed nearly three and Degray achieved almost eight. The group reported comparable results in a Nature Medicine studyin 2015 but these were achieved using software that exploited the statistics of English to predict subsequent letters. No such software was employed in this study.
    The drawback of copy typing is performance can vary with the specific phrases and keyboard layouts used. To get a measure independent of any of these factors, the third task involved selecting squares on a six by six grid as they lit up randomly. This gets closer to quantifying the maximum speed the system can output information, and is easily converted into a digital “bits per second” measure. The team used this range of tasks, without predictive software, because one of the study’s central aims was to develop standardized measures. “We need to establish measures so that—in spite of potential variability between people, methods and researchers—we can really say, ‘clearly this new advance led to higher performance,’ because we have systematic ways of comparing that,” says co-lead author Chethan Pandarinath, then a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford. “It's critical for moving this technology forward.”
    The two ALS patients achieved 2.2 and 1.4 bits per second, respectively, more than doubling previous records (held by these same participants in a previous study from this group). Degray achieved 3.7 bits per second, which is four times faster than the previous best speed. “This is a pretty large leap in performance in comparison to previous clinical studies of BCIs,” Pandarinath says.
    Other researchers agree these are state-of-the-art results. “This is the fastest typing anyone has shown with a BCI,” says biomedical engineer Jennifer Collinger, of the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in the study. “It's on par with technologies like eye-trackers, but there are groups those technologies don’t work for such as people who are “locked-in.” These speeds also approach what ALS patients questioned in a survey said they would want from a BCI device. “You're getting to the point where performance is good enough that users would actually want to have it,” Collinger says.
    Participants had either one or two tiny (one-sixth-inch) electrode arrays implanted on the surfaces of their brains. These “intracortical” implants contain 96 microelectrodes that penetrate one to 1.5 millimeters into parts of the motor cortex that control arm movements. Two of the surgeries were performed by Henderson, who co-directs Stanford’s Neural Prosthetics Translational Laboratory with the study’s senior co-author, bioengineer Krishna Shenoy. The neural signals recorded by the electrodes are transmitted via a cable to a computer where algorithms developed in Shenoy's lab decode the participant's intentions and translate the signals into movements of a computer cursor. The Stanford team is part of a multi-institute consortium called BrainGate, which includes Massachusetts General Hospital and Brown University, among others.
    Other methods of interfacing with the brain via electrodes include those put on the scalp for electroencephalography (EEG) and ones placed under the skull on the brain’s surface, known as electrocorticography (ECoG). The advantage of intracortical implants is they can pick out activity from single cells whereas the other methods capture the average activity of thousands of neurons. “This performance is 10 times better than anything you would get from EEG or ECoG, [which don’t] contain enough information to do this kind of task at this level,” says neurobiologist Andrew Schwartz, at Pitt, who was not involved in the study. Movement and scarring reduces signal quality over roughly the first two years after implantation, but what remains is still useful—“much better than you get with any other technique,” he says.
    The biggest drawback, currently, is having wires coming out of people's heads and attached to cables, which is cumbersome and carries risks. “The future is making these devices wireless,” Pandarinath says. “We're not there yet with people but we’re probably closer to five than 10 years away, and that’s a critical step [toward] a device that you could send somebody home with and be less worried about potential risks like infection.” The devices would need wireless power but several groups are already working on this. “Most of the technology is basically there,” Schwartz says. “You can do that inductively using coils—like wirelessly charging your cell phone in a cradle with coils on either side.”
    The team attributes the improvements to better systems engineering and decoding algorithms. “Performing repeated computations rapidly is critical in a real-time control system,” Pandarinath says. The researchers published a study last year, led by Stanford bioengineer Paul Nuyujukian. In it they trained two macaque monkeys to perform a similar task to the grid exercise used in this study. The animals typed sentences by selecting characters on a screen as they changed color (although they wouldn’t have understood what the words meant). When the team added a separate algorithm to detect the monkeys’ intention to stop, their best speed increased by two words per minute.
    This “discrete click decoder” was also used in the current study. “We've basically created a ‘point and click’ interface here, like a mouse. That’s a good interface for things like modern smartphones or tablets,” Pandarinath says, “which would open a whole new realm of function beyond communication: surfing the Web, playing music, all sorts of things able-bodied people take for granted.”
    The Stanford team is already investigating wireless technology, and has ambitious long-term goals for the project. “The vision we hope to achieve someday would be to be able to plug a wireless receiver into any computer and use it using your brain,” Henderson says. “One of our main goals is to allow 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year control of a standard computer interface using only brain signals.”

    Rabu, 01 Juni 2016

    Aussies on the verge of bionics ‘Holy Grail’ ahead of human trials of brain machine interface technology

    Aussies on the verge of bionics ‘Holy Grail’ ahead of human trials of brain machine interface technology


    Australian researchers are leading the way with brain machine interface technology.
    Nick Whighamnews.com.au
    IMAGINE being able to communicate with a machine using nothing but your thoughts. 
    That is the goal currently being pursued by a team of researchers and engineers at Melbourne University who are leading the way in the hugely significant field of developing brain machine interfaces.
    In an effort to accomplish what has been likened to machine telepathy, they have developed a tiny biocompatible implant called a stentrode which gets implanted into a blood vessel next to the brain. The tiny implant records electric activity from a specific part of the brain and the information is then fed into a decoding algorithm which interprets the electric activity, or thoughts.
    Dr Tom Oxley is leading the research and perhaps the only thing more impressive than the science involved is the story behind how he secured funding to embark on the project.
    While on holiday in New York about four years ago, Dr Oxley sent a cold call e-mail to US Colonel Geoffrey Ling who at the time he had just become the director of the Pentagon’s science and research unit DARPA.
    Much to the surprise of the trainee neurologist at Royal Melbourne Hospital he was quickly invited to the US Defence Department’s research agency and found himself pitching his bold idea to its top brass.
    They agreed to give him $1 million to get started on his work.
    “I don’t think any other body in the world would’ve funded it,” Dr Oxley tells news.com.au. “It was something that was so blue sky and out there.”
    Dr Thomas Oxley has been working on this idea since 2007.
    Dr Thomas Oxley has been working on this idea since 2007.Source:Supplied
    There was some unfounded stigma that come attached with working with DARPA.
    –– ADVERTISEMENT ––
    “There are a lot of cynical representations of DARPA about conducting black box evil work,” he says. “But my experience was that of an open, academically and creatively rich environment to pursue next generation research.”
    It’s a misconception that extends to his work in brain machine interfaces.
    Given the incredible nature of the science, many are quick to jump to lofty conclusions about its future capabilities including speculating about far flung military applications and mind control.
    The technology is “an incredible step forward... but it’s a little bit overblown with what’s likely to happen here,” he says, referring to the more “science fiction” possibilities of the technology.
    Dr Oxley stressed the implanted device is simply used to record information from the brain, not implanting information into it. “So when people start talking about mind control and things like that, actually this is a technology that is totally controlled by the user… it doesn’t actually work the other way around.”
    His team is purely focused on the life altering benefits the technology can bring to the medical industry, primarily in the treatment of paralysis and epilepsy.
    The stentrode is inserted into the blood vessel using a catheter.
    The stentrode is inserted into the blood vessel using a catheter.Source:Supplied
    From the DARPA funding, Dr Oxley and his team was able to use that to leverage Australian government funding.
    Back in Melbourne Terence O’Brien, the head of Melbourne University’s Department of Medicine embraced the project with gusto — something which he referred to as the “Holy Grail for research in bionics”.
    He introduced Dr Oxley to engineers Tony Burkitt and David Grayden who at the time were working on a bionic eye. In the following months postdoctoral researcher Nick Opie joined Dr Oxley as a lead researcher on the project.
    Fast forward to 2016 and the team had successful results of animal trials published in the journal Nature Biotechnology.
    “It’s one thing to prove that we can record that type of data but the next stage is to demonstrate in a human that we can get the human user to control that signal in a way in which is useful,” Dr Oxley says.
    Ultimately, the process hinges on the ability of the technology to translate the electric brain activity into useful information. To do so, they require a tailor-made decoding algorithm.
    “There is a lot of work being done in this space but what’s lacking now is a kind of framework for people to continue to improve on these algorithms,” Dr Oxley says.
    “We are modelling as best we can the decoding algorithms to make it work but really until it’s in (humans) it’s going to be challenging to improve on these systems.”
    The group is aiming to carry out human trails in the near future, most likely next year, when the project will really begin to take shape.
    “The beginning is probably going to be slow. We are aiming for basic control of a couple different directions on a computer screen with a cursor and then with that we hope to use that to manipulate mobility assist devices such as exoskeletons,” Dr Oxley says.
    For those suffering from paralysis or severe spinal cord injuries, the technology offers “the capacity to get information out of their brain to modulate movement systems that will basically enable them to interact with their environment again.”
    Another objective is to allow doctors treating a patient with uncontrollable seizures to have a constant data stream of what’s happening in their brain in order to predict and address the issue.
    The team is keen to get the human patient trials under way and is certainly optimistic about the potential.
    “I think what we’re seeing is the start of a whole new field,” Dr Oxley says.
    Dr Tom Oxley and Dr Nick Opie, the lead researchers on the project. Picture: David Caird
    Dr Tom Oxley and Dr Nick Opie, the lead researchers on the project. Picture: David CairdSource:News Limited