Brain Scan Can Read People's Thoughts

[CuttingEdge100]

Brainscan can Read People's Thoughts

URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100311/hl_afp/scienceresearchusbritainpsychology_20100311174114

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A scan of brain activity can effectively read a person's mind, researchers said Thursday.

British scientists from University College London found they could differentiate brain activity linked to different memories and thereby identify thought patterns by using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

The evidence suggests researchers can tell which memory of a past event a person is recalling from the pattern of their brain activity alone.

"We've been able to look at brain activity for a specific episodic memory -- to look at actual memory traces," said senior author of the study, Eleanor Maguire.

The results, reported in the March 11 online edition of Current Biology, follow an earlier discovery by the same team that they could tell where a person was standing within a virtual reality room in the same way.

The researchers say the new results move this line of research along because episodic memories -- recollections of everyday events -- are expected to be more complex, and thus more difficult to crack than spatial memory.

This is highly disturbing on a number of levels. For one the accuracy of this seems to be around 100% or pretty close, and this has a high potential to be used as an interrogation tool.

For a long time people seem to have not fully objected to this because they felt that it could help create an entirely new generation of prosthetics that could allow a person to control with their thoughts.

This however is not motor control we're talking about, we're talking about episodic memories. This isn't about prosthetics is it? It's about reading minds.

Am I the only person who objects to stuff like this?

What is everybody else's opinion on the matter?


CuttingEdge100

 

[farmkid]

As you probably know, science reports in the popular media is rarely correct. I went to the original article and looked through it to see what it actually said. You have nothing to worry about. Despite the title of Yahoo!'s article, your mind cannot be read by this technique.

What the researchers did was show subjects three different video clips several times, then asked them to recall details from the clips while in a fMRI machine. The researchers could determine which of the three video clips the subjects were recalling by the part of the brain that showed activity in the scan. However, that does not mean that the researchers could tell what the subject was recalling if it was something other than those three memories. It only works for specific defined memories for which scan data already exists. In other words, they can only differentiate whether you're thinking about what you had for dinner last night or your first date if they scan you while you think about those two things and you tell them what you're thinking about. Then, you could think about one or the other and they could tell which one you're thinking about.

 

[Lindley]

^Well put.

Great news for the paralyzed, though; this is precisely the sort of technology they'd need to communicate effectively, once it's developed a bit more.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

As you probably know, science reports in the popular media is rarely correct. I went to the original article and looked through it to see what it actually said. You have nothing to worry about. Despite the title of Yahoo!'s article, your mind cannot be read by this technique.

What the researchers did was show subjects three different video clips several times, then asked them to recall details from the clips while in a fMRI machine. The researchers could determine which of the three video clips the subjects were recalling by the part of the brain that showed activity in the scan. However, that does not mean that the researchers could tell what the subject was recalling if it was something other than those three memories. It only works for specific defined memories for which scan data already exists. In other words, they can only differentiate whether you're thinking about what you had for dinner last night or your first date if they scan you while you think about those two things and you tell them what you're thinking about. Then, you could think about one or the other and they could tell which one you're thinking about.

Interesting.

One question that immediately commes to mind:
Different persons, thinking about the same memory (video clip) exhibit an identical activity in the relevant brain parts or show different activity?
If the latter is the case, one can safely assume that different persons use different neural language (encode concepts, memories differently). If so, thoughts are 'encoded' differently in each person and CuttingEdge100 can be reassured that 'reading' a person's mind is exceedingly dificult.

 

[farmkid]

Yes, the actual location is different for each person. As I remember from the article, it was similar between subjects, but not the same. So, if the person had thought about something else during the scan, the researchers would have no idea what they were thinking about.

 

[bryce]

Don't think about sex...don't think about sex...

 

[FordSVT]

Am I the only person who objects to stuff like this?

What is everybody else's opinion on the matter?


CuttingEdge100

I'm more interested in what you have to say to the replies you received after a week. Understanding the technology you discuss might go a long way towards relieving your paranoia.

 

[Capt. Vulcan]

This reminds me of the memory eraser from eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. The patient was asked to remember the things they wanted to forget as the MRI recorded the results creating a map of what was to be eradicated. Later a different machine would fry the brain based on the previously created map and erase the memory. Surprisingly feasible!

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Captain Vulcan,

Yeah, but since our memories make us who we are, erasing them is obviously not a good thing to do.

 

[Capt. Vulcan]

Well the film at least sort of suggests otherwise. Even though the two had their memories of each other erased, they were somehow still drawn to each other.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Captain Vulcan,

Yeah, but in real life that wouldn't happen

 

[JonathonWally]

Don't think about sex...don't think about sex...

Are you kidding me? I'd be thinking about sex with the interogater's wife the entire time in everyway possible, just to mess with him!

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Well the film at least sort of suggests otherwise. Even though the two had their memories of each other erased, they were somehow still drawn to each other.

Captain Vulcan,

Yeah, but in real life that wouldn't happen

Are you sure, CuttingEdge100?

Consider:
If a moral person loses his memories and is told he's a serial killer, will he start killing left and right? NO.

If a thug/killer/sociopath loses his memories and he's told he's a saint, will he behave accordingly? Highly unlikely. Very soon, he'll start 'cutting corners', cheating because it's 'easier' this way - and his actions will only escalate.

Personality, feelings, morality - they are more than merely the sum of one's memories.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

ProtoAvatar,

But do you seriously think it's right to just erase people's memories?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

ProtoAvatar,

But do you seriously think it's right to just erase people's memories?

The issue was whether erasing one's memories erases one's personality - and I refuted this notion.

Is it right to erase people's memories?
Depends on a number of factors:
Did the person gave her consent to have her memories erased or not?
Did the erase served a medical purpose (such as erasing crippling traumatic memories) or not?

 

[Defiant]

All new technologies such as this raise serious ethical questions. Governments and corporations spend a lot of time and money trying to figure out if a particular employee is "trustworthy." This was the origin of the polygraph. A lot of people object to he use of the polygraph because it is nototiously unreliable (a psychopath will be, at worst, inconclusive on a poly).

A polygraph also only shows whether or not you have a strong emotional reaction to particular question - not why. (see Penn and Teller's Bu!!$h!t for more info). For example, when I had my first poly 8 years ago, the polygrapher was trained to ask the question "have you ever used drugs outside our policy?" I've never used drugs at all (yes, I know, I'm square. It's not a religious thing, just a personal choice). Incredibly to me, the polygrapher told me I was having a bit of a reaction to the question, which made my results inconclusive! I was incensed!

I got re-scheduled for a second poly, and the polygrapher asked me what I was thinking about when he asked me the question. When I thought about it, I realized that the way he was asking me the question made me think he automatically assumed I HAD used drugs - just not outside the allowable limits. The question itself was somewhat insulting (I watched drugs destroy the life of a childhood friend of mine growing up), and I told him so. Against what he told me was his better judgement, he rephrased the question: "Have you ever used illegal drugs?" I passed with flying colors.

This technology might offer the ability to determine whether or not an answer is coming from memory or being invented by conscious thought. It's not so much which memory, but where the memory is. If, for example, a person memorized all of their answers to a set of questions (rehearsing their alibi), I should imagine all of the "memories" would be closely connected. If the subject is making up answers as he goes along, that likely would be visible, as well, particularly when questions are asked out of order and subtly different details are evoked.

The question is, is it ethical? Presumably, if you knowingly consent to such a procedure, there is little ethical concern - so long as the line of questioning doesn't extend beyond what was agreed ("Do you watch porn? How often? What kinds?")

Until the technology is fully understood, it simply should not be used in that way - and it should never be used by practitioners who do not understand it fully, as they will misinterpret the results (polygraphs are notorious for this).

 

[Alidar Jarok]

This reminds me of the memory eraser from eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. The patient was asked to remember the things they wanted to forget as the MRI recorded the results creating a map of what was to be eradicated. Later a different machine would fry the brain based on the previously created map and erase the memory. Surprisingly feasible!

That's why I was thinking. Interesting with scientific possibilities. Greater understanding of our brain is a good thing (even if the consequences are far reaching).

 

[Lindley]

All new technologies such as this raise serious ethical questions. Governments and corporations spend a lot of time and money trying to figure out if a particular employee is "trustworthy." This was the origin of the polygraph. A lot of people object to he use of the polygraph because it is nototiously unreliable (a psychopath will be, at worst, inconclusive on a poly).

Fortunately, polygraphs are only required by certain contracts. For instance, working on an NSA contract might require a poly, but not a DOD contract at the same clearance level. So far I've never had to take a polygraph despite my security clearance.

 

[Defiant]

Fortunately, polygraphs are only required by certain contracts. For instance, working on an NSA contract might require a poly, but not a DOD contract at the same clearance level. So far I've never had to take a polygraph despite my security clearance.

Lucky you! I've had 3 in 8 years.... hate the damn things...