🚀 go-pugleaf

On 9 May 2003 20:05:58 -0700, peer-error@excite.com (External Network
Error) wrote:

>Hi:
>
>I am planning on developing a digital/brain interface. It uses FSK
>[Frequency Shift Keying] signals. It is in a silicon-chip. This
>silicon-chip is attached  to a subject's visual cortex [chip's
>circuits connected to visual cortex's neurons]. The chip processes
>FSK. The chip has information about the subject's visual cortex. In
>order to produce the correct visual perception, it has to:
>
>1. Convert to FSK information to a language the visual cortex can
>understand
>2. Excite the correct region[s] of the visual cortex with the
>compatible language.
>
>My design acts by affecting negative neuronal ions in the visual
>cortex with electrons. The digital electric signal is initially
>FSK-modulated. This signal's format is then altered so that it can
>communicate effectively with the visual cortex [by affecting its
>neuron's negative ions].
>
>Any hints accepted.
>Thanks,
>
You don't indicate what degree of knowledge or experience you have
with neurophysiology.  But from the way the proposal is stated, I
suggest that you start with a laboratory course in neurobiology.  You
need to understand "the language the visual cortex can understand",
exactly what the role of "negative neuronal ions" (chloride?) really
is, and just how your electrons can exert an effect.  It really is not
clear why you emphasize FSK (frequency shift keying).  Frankly, it
makes absolutely no different to the brain what the internal
representation your digital circuitry uses -- a system using Cobol and
binary coded decimal numbers should work as effectively as anything
else, provided the design is proper.

Note: the laboratory nature of the course is essential.  You have to
understand just what is involved in the reality of neurophysiology.

After that, go into a graduate program in neurobiology or
bioengineering or whatever in some institution that is involved in
visual prosthesis and get attached to a research group as a grad
research assistant.  Then, after some post-doc work in the field, you
will really be in a position to put your ideas (which might change
just a tad from the experience) to real use.

> Any hints accepted.

Watch fewer movies.

r norman <rsnorman_@_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<cqqpbvgsktmgosm9sad08spq7l868a7929@4ax.com>...
> On 9 May 2003 20:05:58 -0700, peer-error@excite.com (External Network
> Error) wrote:
> 
> >Hi:
> >
> >I am planning on developing a digital/brain interface. It uses FSK
> >[Frequency Shift Keying] signals. It is in a silicon-chip. This
> >silicon-chip is attached  to a subject's visual cortex [chip's
> >circuits connected to visual cortex's neurons]. The chip processes
> >FSK. The chip has information about the subject's visual cortex. In
> >order to produce the correct visual perception, it has to:
> >
> >1. Convert to FSK information to a language the visual cortex can
> >understand
> >2. Excite the correct region[s] of the visual cortex with the
> >compatible language.
> >
> >My design acts by affecting negative neuronal ions in the visual
> >cortex with electrons. The digital electric signal is initially
> >FSK-modulated. This signal's format is then altered so that it can
> >communicate effectively with the visual cortex [by affecting its
> >neuron's negative ions].
> >
> >Any hints accepted.
> >Thanks,
> >
> You don't indicate what degree of knowledge or experience you have
> with neurophysiology.  But from the way the proposal is stated, I
> suggest that you start with a laboratory course in neurobiology.  You
> need to understand "the language the visual cortex can understand",
> exactly what the role of "negative neuronal ions" (chloride?) really
> is, and just how your electrons can exert an effect.  It really is not
> clear why you emphasize FSK (frequency shift keying).  Frankly, it
> makes absolutely no different to the brain what the internal
> representation your digital circuitry uses -- a system using Cobol and
> binary coded decimal numbers should work as effectively as anything
> else, provided the design is proper.
> 
> Note: the laboratory nature of the course is essential.  You have to
> understand just what is involved in the reality of neurophysiology.
> 
> After that, go into a graduate program in neurobiology or
> bioengineering or whatever in some institution that is involved in
> visual prosthesis and get attached to a research group as a grad
> research assistant.  Then, after some post-doc work in the field, you
> will really be in a position to put your ideas (which might change
> just a tad from the experience) to real use.

There is a electronic brain device currently used by the blind.
Electrode stimulate the brain to produce visual perception. A major
disadvanted is the heat [generated by electrons flowing against
resistance] damage brain tissue eventually rendering this technique
useless. Burnt tissue is dead and does not respond to excitation of
any type. I am thinking of a device using electrical stimulation w/out
generating a denaturing amount of heat.

On 10 May 2003 13:35:35 -0700, peer-error@excite.com (External Network
Error) wrote:

>r norman <rsnorman_@_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<cqqpbvgsktmgosm9sad08spq7l868a7929@4ax.com>...
>> On 9 May 2003 20:05:58 -0700, peer-error@excite.com (External Network
>> Error) wrote:
>> 
>> >Hi:
>> >
>> >I am planning on developing a digital/brain interface. It uses FSK
>> >[Frequency Shift Keying] signals. It is in a silicon-chip. This
>> >silicon-chip is attached  to a subject's visual cortex [chip's
>> >circuits connected to visual cortex's neurons]. The chip processes
>> >FSK. The chip has information about the subject's visual cortex. In
>> >order to produce the correct visual perception, it has to:
>> >
>> >1. Convert to FSK information to a language the visual cortex can
>> >understand
>> >2. Excite the correct region[s] of the visual cortex with the
>> >compatible language.
>> >
>> >My design acts by affecting negative neuronal ions in the visual
>> >cortex with electrons. The digital electric signal is initially
>> >FSK-modulated. This signal's format is then altered so that it can
>> >communicate effectively with the visual cortex [by affecting its
>> >neuron's negative ions].
>> >
>> >Any hints accepted.
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>> You don't indicate what degree of knowledge or experience you have
>> with neurophysiology.  But from the way the proposal is stated, I
>> suggest that you start with a laboratory course in neurobiology.  You
>> need to understand "the language the visual cortex can understand",
>> exactly what the role of "negative neuronal ions" (chloride?) really
>> is, and just how your electrons can exert an effect.  It really is not
>> clear why you emphasize FSK (frequency shift keying).  Frankly, it
>> makes absolutely no different to the brain what the internal
>> representation your digital circuitry uses -- a system using Cobol and
>> binary coded decimal numbers should work as effectively as anything
>> else, provided the design is proper.
>> 
>> Note: the laboratory nature of the course is essential.  You have to
>> understand just what is involved in the reality of neurophysiology.
>> 
>> After that, go into a graduate program in neurobiology or
>> bioengineering or whatever in some institution that is involved in
>> visual prosthesis and get attached to a research group as a grad
>> research assistant.  Then, after some post-doc work in the field, you
>> will really be in a position to put your ideas (which might change
>> just a tad from the experience) to real use.
>
>There is a electronic brain device currently used by the blind.
>Electrode stimulate the brain to produce visual perception. A major
>disadvanted is the heat [generated by electrons flowing against
>resistance] damage brain tissue eventually rendering this technique
>useless. Burnt tissue is dead and does not respond to excitation of
>any type. I am thinking of a device using electrical stimulation w/out
>generating a denaturing amount of heat.

Again, I must repeat my advice -- take a good neurophysiology lab
course. In an intro course, you may not learn the details about how
electrodes actually work, but you certainly will if you do any
"advanced" work -- i.e. a good senior or graduate level course.  Learn
about polarizable and non-polarizable electrodes and how they actually
interface with neural tissue.

Basically, anything that produces an electrical potential in a
conductor will produce a corresponding current which will dissipate
energy (simple Ohm's law).  You can't get around it.  There are
techniques to minimize the resistance in the electrode and at the
electrode-tissue interface which reduces the amount of heating.
However, in order to stimulate a very small number of cells (and thus
in order to produce a very specific and specialized response), your
electrode must be very small.  Small electrodes have high resistance
-- a simple law of physics.

Also, the electrode can react mechanically and chemically with the
tissue to produce cell damage and death.  I frankly would suspect that
the heating would be a minimal aspect of long-term neural damage with
electrode implantation.  However, I may be wrong about that.  In any
event, the people you cite doing the neural visual prosthesis work are
quite well aware of all of this.  The prosthetic electrodes being
used, especially any electrodes being used for chronic implantation in
humans, are carefully engineered to produce the least harm possible
with today's knowledge and engineering skill.  Why would you think you
could do better?

To be quite honest, you may indeed have the intelligence, imagination,
and creativity to beat current technology.  However you still have to
learn all the details of current technology before you can convince
people that you can improve on it.  Also, the way the game works is
that you have to learn to be a player before you can participate. 

> This signal's format is then altered so that it can
> communicate effectively with the visual cortex

There's the obstacle...

"Mark Zarella" <seesigfile@foremail.address> wrote in message news:<I5yva.54721$O06.52154@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> > This signal's format is then altered so that it can
> > communicate effectively with the visual cortex
> 
> There's the obstacle...

I heard once that someone somewhere somehow got a neuron to adhere to
a silicon chip, and that the next stage would be for them to communicate
with each other. 

I had a dream in which I had invented a neural interface which would
input actual nerve signals, and use these signals to control a 
prosthetic limb. Of course, the sensory inputs are a whole nother
round of design/discovery work. :-)

Cheers!
Rich

> I heard once that someone somewhere somehow got a neuron to adhere to
> a silicon chip, and that the next stage would be for them to communicate
> with each other.

There were a lot of presentation at the 49th meeting of the
Americal Vacuum Society about oriented neural growth and 
interfacing with electrodes. I can be done, but it's neither 
trivial nor reliable (having the neuron grow along an electrode 
does not mean it will make an electrical connexion).

A short summary of the presentation I attended is available
at http://mmyotte.free.fr/chua/avs_summary.pdf, which provides
some names/web pages/litterature references on the topic.

Jean-Michel

On Mon, 12 May 2003 23:09:11 +0200, Jean-Michel Friedt
<friedtj@imec.be> wrote:

>> I heard once that someone somewhere somehow got a neuron to adhere to
>> a silicon chip, and that the next stage would be for them to communicate
>> with each other.
>
>There were a lot of presentation at the 49th meeting of the
>Americal Vacuum Society about oriented neural growth and 
>interfacing with electrodes. I can be done, but it's neither 
>trivial nor reliable (having the neuron grow along an electrode 
>does not mean it will make an electrical connexion).
>
>A short summary of the presentation I attended is available
>at http://mmyotte.free.fr/chua/avs_summary.pdf, which provides
>some names/web pages/litterature references on the topic.
>
>Jean-Michel

And also getting tissue cultured cells to grow along a silicon
substrate is a lot different from trying to interface to cells inside
a real, living brain.

r norman <rsnorman_@_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<7q60cv8nmpgth7v2g4rqkbn4o33os3de8v@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 23:09:11 +0200, Jean-Michel Friedt
> <friedtj@imec.be> wrote:
> 
> >> I heard once that someone somewhere somehow got a neuron to adhere to
> >> a silicon chip, and that the next stage would be for them to communicate
> >> with each other.
> >
> >There were a lot of presentation at the 49th meeting of the
> >Americal Vacuum Society about oriented neural growth and 
> >interfacing with electrodes. I can be done, but it's neither 
> >trivial nor reliable (having the neuron grow along an electrode 
> >does not mean it will make an electrical connexion).
> >
> >A short summary of the presentation I attended is available
> >at http://mmyotte.free.fr/chua/avs_summary.pdf, which provides
> >some names/web pages/litterature references on the topic.
> >
> >Jean-Michel
> 
> And also getting tissue cultured cells to grow along a silicon
> substrate is a lot different from trying to interface to cells inside
> a real, living brain.

Actually, what I was thinking was more along the lines of something
interfacing with the nerve stub in the stump, which, admittedly
is a little off-topic for the thread. According to what I know
about it, a severed nerve "wants" to grow back, and one doctor
told me that they do a millimeter a week. So what we'd need to 
do is find something to do to an interface chip that makes it
"look" (or feel) like a dendrite to the live neuron. I'd be
quite reluctant having something implanted in my skull (although
if, God forbid, I were struck blind, I might change my tune), but
I think if I lost a limb I'd be happy to have scientists experiment
with my stump.

As long as they can do it painlessly.

I'm also fascinated by the "phantom limb" phenomenon, and I think
it'd be neater than a rat to see if a phantom limb makes a Kirlian
photograph image.

Cheers!
Rich

> about it, a severed nerve "wants" to grow back, and one doctor
> told me that they do a millimeter a week. So what we'd need to
> do is find something to do to an interface chip that makes it
> "look" (or feel) like a dendrite to the live neuron. I'd be

A major issue here is that electrical connexion is not sufficient
to keep a neural connexion happy. You also need chemical communication,
and the surface chemistry involved is far from trivial (but I'm
not sure I am allowed to elaborate too much on this topic).

JM

richardgrise@yahoo.com (Rich Grise) wrote in 
news:3df9fd6c.0305141147.79d991ad@posting.google.com:

> According to what I know
> about it, a severed nerve "wants" to grow back, and one doctor
> told me that they do a millimeter a week.

This is true of peripheral nerves, but not of central nervous system 
tissue.  All the neurons involved in sight, including the retina, are 
central nervous system cells, and will not repair themselves.

-- 
Scott 
Reverse first field of address to reply

The cranial nerves are special, more like the brain and spinal cord in that they
don't regenerate as well as peripheral nerves, nothing like a millimeter a day.

What you'd "hook on to" at the optic nerve might be nothing but dead axons.

If you hope to use a bunch of little digitized signals you may want to deliver
them at the cortex, where the visual field is mapped out for us in homunculus,
and the tissue is exquisitely sensitive to tiny voltages.

Phantom pains occur in the cortex, regardless of Kirlian aura.

-MT


"Rich Grise" <richardgrise@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3df9fd6c.0305141147.79d991ad@posting.google.com...
> r norman <rsnorman_@_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<7q60cv8nmpgth7v2g4rqkbn4o33os3de8v@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 12 May 2003 23:09:11 +0200, Jean-Michel Friedt
> > <friedtj@imec.be> wrote:
> >
> > >> I heard once that someone somewhere somehow got a neuron to adhere to
> > >> a silicon chip, and that the next stage would be for them to communicate
> > >> with each other.
> > >
> > >There were a lot of presentation at the 49th meeting of the
> > >Americal Vacuum Society about oriented neural growth and
> > >interfacing with electrodes. I can be done, but it's neither
> > >trivial nor reliable (having the neuron grow along an electrode
> > >does not mean it will make an electrical connexion).
> > >
> > >A short summary of the presentation I attended is available
> > >at http://mmyotte.free.fr/chua/avs_summary.pdf, which provides
> > >some names/web pages/litterature references on the topic.
> > >
> > >Jean-Michel
> >
> > And also getting tissue cultured cells to grow along a silicon
> > substrate is a lot different from trying to interface to cells inside
> > a real, living brain.
>
> Actually, what I was thinking was more along the lines of something
> interfacing with the nerve stub in the stump, which, admittedly
> is a little off-topic for the thread. According to what I know
> about it, a severed nerve "wants" to grow back, and one doctor
> told me that they do a millimeter a week. So what we'd need to
> do is find something to do to an interface chip that makes it
> "look" (or feel) like a dendrite to the live neuron. I'd be
> quite reluctant having something implanted in my skull (although
> if, God forbid, I were struck blind, I might change my tune), but
> I think if I lost a limb I'd be happy to have scientists experiment
> with my stump.
>
> As long as they can do it painlessly.
>
> I'm also fascinated by the "phantom limb" phenomenon, and I think
> it'd be neater than a rat to see if a phantom limb makes a Kirlian
> photograph image.
>
> Cheers!
> Rich

I believe here is a paper that describes exactly what this thread is
about:  neurons in tissue culture interact with a computer to produce
the "Neurally Controlled Animat".
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/potter/papers/AutonRobots.pdf
(see also
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/potter/papers/PotterDistProcPreprint.pdf
)

More recent work Steve M Potter  is featured in todays NYTimes
"Circuits" section.  You can check out his own web page at
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/potter/
or read the NYTimes article at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/technology/circuits/15next.html