Open Water fMRI will be able to read your mind

by

Open Water is creating a portable and cheap MRI. fMRI can predict what words you are thinking of and what images your are thinking. There have been mistakes in published work showing cherry-picking and double counting of MRI data.

Below are some examples of work that has gone through rigorous peer review to check the math and statistical correlation processes. No cherry picking or double counting. Solid work that shows of inferences we can make to what the brain is doing and thinking by just looking at the use of oxygen by the brain voxel-by-voxel.

Enabling brain stimulation as well as recording

Openwater can focus infrared light down very finely, to sub-mm or even a few microns depending on the depth. Already 10 cm of depth can be shown with about 100 micron resolution or focusing power; this enables stimulation of certain areas using light itself. Benign near-infrared light. No probes, no needles, no cutting open a skull, no injections. While these numbers are more than enough for a variety of products, we are working on improving both the depth and focusing resolution and making rapid progress.

There are other research teams working on brain scanning and stimulation, but I saw no one working on a portable non-invasive approach. The field mostly divides into two directions:
a) the meditation-mindfulness teams using EEG, which has no real spatial resolution, and

b) the basic research groups working towards the estimated five or more Nobel prizes that it will take just to understand how neurons work. The latter group focuses on invasive approaches like opening up the skull and/or inserting chemicals and physical probes and needles directly into the brain. There is some fringe stuff, like those trying to do what Elon Musk popularized in a talk last year; I’ll call all of that “neural lace” essentially injectable super-small silicon chips that interweave through your blood and brain.

Non-invasive brain interfaces should be more popular than injections into the brain. Openwater invented a non-invasive suite of approaches that can leverage new manufacturing processes coming online in the world’s LCD factories for a ski-hat form-factor wearable at consumer electronics price-points as we hit volume production.

Background research papers on fMRI mind reading

Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience – Natural speed reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex

One crucial test for any quantitative model of the brain is to show that the model can be used to accurately decode information from evoked brain activity. Several recent neuroimaging studies have decoded the structure or semantic content of static visual images from human brain activity. Here we present a decoding algorithm that makes it possible to decode detailed information about the object and action categories present in natural movies from human brain activity signals measured by functional MRI. Decoding is accomplished using a hierarchical logistic regression (HLR) model that is based on labels that were manually assigned from the WordNet semantic taxonomy. This model makes it possible to simultaneously decode information about both specific and general categories, while respecting the relationships between them. Our results show that we can decode the presence of many object and action categories from averaged blood-oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) responses with a high degree of accuracy (area under the ROC curve > 0.9). Furthermore, we used this framework to test whether semantic relationships defined in the WordNet taxonomy are represented the same way in the human brain. This analysis showed that hierarchical relationships between general categories and atypical examples, such as organism and plant, did not seem to be reflected in representations measured by BOLD fMRI.

Reconstructing visual experience from brain activity evoked by natural moves

Quantitative modeling of human brain activity can provide crucial insights about cortical representations, and can form the basis for brain decoding devices. Recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have modeled brain activity elicited by static visual patterns, and have shown that it is possible to reconstruct these images from brain activity measurements. However, blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signals measured using fMRI are very slow, so it has been difficult to model brain activity elicited by dynamic stimuli such as natural movies. Here we present a new motion-energy encoding model that largely overcome this limitation. Our motion-energy model describes fast visual information and slow hemodynamics by separate components. We recorded BOLD signals in occipito-temporal visual cortex of human subjects who passively watched natural movies, and fit the encoding model separately to individual voxels. Visualization of the fit models reveals how early visual areas represent moving stimuli. To demonstrate the power of our approach we also constructed a Bayesian decoder, by combining estimated encoding models with a sampled natural movie prior. The decoder provides remarkable reconstructions of natural movies, capturing the spatio-temporal structure of the viewed movie. These results demonstrate that dynamic brain activity measured under naturalistic conditions can be decoded using current fMRI technology.

28 thoughts on “Open Water fMRI will be able to read your mind”

  1. Hi my name is Jimmy Curry, you ready for this….I got fmri’s in me by organized crime members used to extort information and I think it’s mixed with pig bool cells and human cells to read thoughts and gain visual information… thay also use it for murder for hire on the dark web, nobody want’s to believe, it all I need is a cat scan done on me to prove this is real…anybody ready to be to step up and catch up!! (361 779- 5075 I can”t afford a catscan…please do some research smart people, THIS IS REAL…thank you.

  2. There are so many basic errors and so much hype in this it’s hard to know where to begin. Some thoughts. If it’s IR-based it’s not MRI so it’s also not fMRI. It’s called fNIRS, for functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Next, there is a massive problem with depth penetration with IR light and also heating, and a lot of scatter that affects precision. It may be possible to detect the superficial layers of cortex, but whole brain will require the sort of energy that will cook the subject long before activity is decoded. Getting beyond the scatter is going to require all sorts of assumptions about how the brain responds, severely limiting measurement of novel situations. So, I will wait until there is lots of experimental evidence before I buy the quoted resolution at the quoted depth. My five bucks says that basic physics trumps your hype. The more I hear out of Openwater, the more I’m reminded of Theranos.

  3. So just out of curiosity, how often do you lift whole paragraphs from someone else’s site without attribution, without even a hint that the text is not original, and even going so far as to replace pronouns to disguise the act? The entire chunk of text that I quote below is taken directly (but for a pronoun change here and there) from Open Water’s site: “Openwater can focus infrared light down very finely, to sub-mm or even a few microns depending on the depth. Already 10 cm of depth can be shown with about 100 micron resolution or focusing power; this enables stimulation of certain areas using light itself. Benign near-infrared light. No probes, no needles, no cutting open a skull, no injections. While these numbers are more than enough for a variety of products, we are working on improving both the depth and focusing resolution and making rapid progress.” “There are other research teams working on brain scanning and stimulation, but I saw no one working on a portable non-invasive approach. The field mostly divides into two directions:” “a) the meditation-mindfulness teams using EEG, which has no real spatial resolution, and” “b) the basic research groups working towards the estimated five or more Nobel prizes that it will take just to understand how neurons work. The latter group focuses on invasive approaches like opening up the skull and/or inserting chemicals and physical probes and needles directly into the brain. There is some fringe stuff, like those trying to do what Elon Musk popularized in a talk last year; I’ll call all of that “neural lace” essentially injectable super-small silicon chips that interweave through your blood and brain.” All of that quoted text is plagiarized directly from Open Water’s FAQ page, behind the question, “How does Openwater enable brain stimulation as well as recording?” I will include the URL, but the last time I put a URL in the comments, it was deleted. https://www.openwater.cc/faq-1

  4. There are so many basic errors and so much hype in this it’s hard to know where to begin. Some thoughts. If it’s IR-based it’s not MRI so it’s also not fMRI. It’s called fNIRS for functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Next there is a massive problem with depth penetration with IR light and also heating and a lot of scatter that affects precision. It may be possible to detect the superficial layers of cortex but whole brain will require the sort of energy that will cook the subject long before activity is decoded. Getting beyond the scatter is going to require all sorts of assumptions about how the brain responds severely limiting measurement of novel situations. So I will wait until there is lots of experimental evidence before I buy the quoted resolution at the quoted depth. My five bucks says that basic physics trumps your hype. The more I hear out of Openwater the more I’m reminded of Theranos.

  5. So just out of curiosity how often do you lift whole paragraphs from someone else’s site without attribution without even a hint that the text is not original and even going so far as to replace pronouns to disguise the act?The entire chunk of text that I quote below is taken directly (but for a pronoun change here and there) from Open Water’s site:Openwater can focus infrared light down very finely” to sub-mm or even a few microns depending on the depth. Already 10 cm of depth can be shown with about 100 micron resolution or focusing power; this enables stimulation of certain areas using light itself. Benign near-infrared light. No probes no needles no cutting open a skull no injections. While these numbers are more than enough for a variety of products” we are working on improving both the depth and focusing resolution and making rapid progress.”” “”””There are other research teams working on brain scanning and stimulation”””” but I saw no one working on a portable non-invasive approach. The field mostly divides into two directions:””””””””a) the meditation-mindfulness teams using EEG”” which has no real spatial resolution”” and””””””””b) the basic research groups working towards the estimated five or more Nobel prizes that it will take just to understand how neurons work. The latter group focuses on invasive approaches like opening up the skull and/or inserting chemicals and physical probes and needles directly into the brain. There is some fringe stuff”””” like those trying to do what Elon Musk popularized in a talk last year; I’ll call all of that “neural lace” essentially injectable super-small silicon chips that interweave through your blood and brain.””””All of that quoted text is plagiarized directly from Open Water’s FAQ page”” behind the question”” “”””How does Openwater enable brain stimulation as well as recording?”””” I will include the URL”” but the last time I put a URL in the comments”” it was deleted. https://www.openwater.cc/faq-“

  7. The weird thing to me is that there isn’t even any need to obfuscate it. He could just leave the pronouns as is, include some quotation marks, and include a link. He does do that sometimes, but then sometimes not. I know he’s not trying to win a Pullitzer or publish a book out of these things so I guess that’s what excuses the sloppiness, but I still think it’s helpful for the audience to see a clear delineation between the author’s voice and other sources.

  9. The weird thing to me is that there isn’t even any need to obfuscate it. He could just leave the pronouns as is include some quotation marks and include a link. He does do that sometimes but then sometimes not. I know he’s not trying to win a Pullitzer or publish a book out of these things so I guess that’s what excuses the sloppiness but I still think it’s helpful for the audience to see a clear delineation between the author’s voice and other sources.

  11. This is an incredible development if it pans out but as per the presentation it seems they are already way ahead the current state of the art of traditional MRI.Because they say they can get information down to the micron level which is equivalent to a neuron’s size. I imagine the problems here are getting a sizeable amount of brain tissue scanned given the huge number of micron sized voxels in a brain.In any case this open many astounding possibilities for mind reading technologies which would require probably far less than a full scan of a brain.And there’s that too. Scanning a full alive brain without killing its owner could cease being science fiction and become commonplace technology only requiring further development of the information processing and storage part. I can barely imagine how much data a full brain scan at this resolution would take requiring several leaps in computing and storage power for becoming practical.But for science and understanding of the brain it would be a real boon.

  15. The link I referred to above didn’t get posted I’ll try again without the https://“” prefix:www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/30/mind-reading-tech-used-monitor-chinese-workers-emotions/amp/”””

  17. This is an incredible development if it pans out, but as per the presentation, it seems they are already way ahead the current state of the art of traditional MRI. Because they say they can get information down to the micron level, which is equivalent to a neuron’s size. I imagine the problems here are getting a sizeable amount of brain tissue scanned, given the huge number of micron sized voxels in a brain. In any case, this open many astounding possibilities for mind reading technologies, which would require probably far less than a full scan of a brain. And there’s that too. Scanning a full alive brain without killing its owner could cease being science fiction and become commonplace technology, only requiring further development of the information processing and storage part. I can barely imagine how much data a full brain scan at this resolution would take, requiring several leaps in computing and storage power for becoming practical. But for science and understanding of the brain it would be a real boon.

  22. The weird thing to me is that there isn’t even any need to obfuscate it. He could just leave the pronouns as is, include some quotation marks, and include a link. He does do that sometimes, but then sometimes not. I know he’s not trying to win a Pullitzer or publish a book out of these things so I guess that’s what excuses the sloppiness, but I still think it’s helpful for the audience to see a clear delineation between the author’s voice and other sources.

  23. There are so many basic errors and so much hype in this it’s hard to know where to begin. Some thoughts. If it’s IR-based it’s not MRI so it’s also not fMRI. It’s called fNIRS, for functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Next, there is a massive problem with depth penetration with IR light and also heating, and a lot of scatter that affects precision. It may be possible to detect the superficial layers of cortex, but whole brain will require the sort of energy that will cook the subject long before activity is decoded. Getting beyond the scatter is going to require all sorts of assumptions about how the brain responds, severely limiting measurement of novel situations. So, I will wait until there is lots of experimental evidence before I buy the quoted resolution at the quoted depth. My five bucks says that basic physics trumps your hype. The more I hear out of Openwater, the more I’m reminded of Theranos.

  24. So just out of curiosity, how often do you lift whole paragraphs from someone else’s site without attribution, without even a hint that the text is not original, and even going so far as to replace pronouns to disguise the act?

    The entire chunk of text that I quote below is taken directly (but for a pronoun change here and there) from Open Water’s site:

    “Openwater can focus infrared light down very finely, to sub-mm or even a few microns depending on the depth. Already 10 cm of depth can be shown with about 100 micron resolution or focusing power; this enables stimulation of certain areas using light itself. Benign near-infrared light. No probes, no needles, no cutting open a skull, no injections. While these numbers are more than enough for a variety of products, we are working on improving both the depth and focusing resolution and making rapid progress.”

    “There are other research teams working on brain scanning and stimulation, but I saw no one working on a portable non-invasive approach. The field mostly divides into two directions:”

    “a) the meditation-mindfulness teams using EEG, which has no real spatial resolution, and”

    “b) the basic research groups working towards the estimated five or more Nobel prizes that it will take just to understand how neurons work. The latter group focuses on invasive approaches like opening up the skull and/or inserting chemicals and physical probes and needles directly into the brain. There is some fringe stuff, like those trying to do what Elon Musk popularized in a talk last year; I’ll call all of that “neural lace” essentially injectable super-small silicon chips that interweave through your blood and brain.”

    All of that quoted text is plagiarized directly from Open Water’s FAQ page, behind the question, “How does Openwater enable brain stimulation as well as recording?” I will include the URL, but the last time I put a URL in the comments, it was deleted.

    https://www.openwater.cc/faq-1

  27. This is an incredible development if it pans out, but as per the presentation, it seems they are already way ahead the current state of the art of traditional MRI.

    Because they say they can get information down to the micron level, which is equivalent to a neuron’s size. I imagine the problems here are getting a sizeable amount of brain tissue scanned, given the huge number of micron sized voxels in a brain.

    In any case, this open many astounding possibilities for mind reading technologies, which would require probably far less than a full scan of a brain.

    And there’s that too. Scanning a full alive brain without killing its owner could cease being science fiction and become commonplace technology, only requiring further development of the information processing and storage part. I can barely imagine how much data a full brain scan at this resolution would take, requiring several leaps in computing and storage power for becoming practical.

    But for science and understanding of the brain it would be a real boon.

Comments are closed.