Brain-reading or thought identification uses the responses of multiple voxels in the brain evoked by stimulus then detected by fMRI in order to decode the original stimulus. Advances in research have made this possible by using human neuroimaging to decode a person's conscious experience based on non-invasive measurements of an individual's brain activity. Brain reading studies differ in the type of decoding (i.e. classification, identification and reconstruction) employed, the target (i.e. decoding visual patterns, auditory patterns, cognitive states), and the decoding algorithms (linear classification, nonlinear classification, direct reconstruction, Bayesian reconstruction, etc.) employed.
Professor of neuropsychology Barbara Sahakian qualifies, "A lot of neuroscientists in the field are very cautious and say we can't talk about reading individuals' minds, and right now that is very true, but we're moving ahead so rapidly, it's not going to be that long before we will be able to tell whether someone's making up a story, or whether someone intended to do a crime with a certain degree of certainty."
Identification of complex natural images is possible using voxels from early and anterior visual cortex areas forward of them (visual areas V3A, V3B, V4, and the lateral occipital) together with Bayesian inference. This brain reading approach uses three components: a structural encoding model that characterizes responses in early visual areas; a semantic encoding model that characterizes responses in anterior visual areas; and a Bayesian prior that describes the distribution of structural and semantic scene statistics.
Experimentally the procedure is for subjects to view 1750 black and white natural images that are correlated with voxel activation in their brains. Then subjects viewed another 120 novel target images, and information from the earlier scans is used reconstruct them. Natural images used include pictures of a seaside cafe and harbor, performers on a stage, and dense foliage.
In 2008 IBM applied for a patent on how to extract mental images of human faces from the human brain. It uses a feedback loop based on brain measurements of the fusiform gyrus area in the brain which activates proportionate with degree of facial recognition.
In 2011, a team led by Shinji Nishimoto used only brain recordings to partially reconstruct what volunteers were seeing. The researchers applied a new model, about how moving object information is processed in human brains, while volunteers watched clips from several videos. An algorithm searched through thousands of hours of external YouTube video footage (none of the videos were the same as the ones the volunteers watched) to select the clips that were most similar. The authors have uploaded demos comparing the watched and the computer-estimated videos.
Brain-reading has been suggested as an alternative to polygraph machines as a form of lie detection. Another alternative to polygraph machines is blood oxygenated level dependent functional MRI technology (BOLD fMRI). This technique involves the interpretation of the local change in the concentration of oxygenated hemoglobin in the brain, although the relationship between this blood flow and neural activity is not yet completely understood. Another technique to find concealed information is brain fingerprinting, which uses EEG to ascertain if a person has a specific memory or information by identifying P300 event related potentials.
A number of concerns have been raised about the accuracy and ethical implications of brain-reading for this purpose. Laboratory studies have found rates of accuracy of up to 85%; however, there are concerns about what this means for false positive results among non-criminal populations: "If the prevalence of "prevaricators" in the group being examined is low, the test will yield far more false-positive than true-positive results; about one person in five will be incorrectly identified by the test." Ethical problems involved in the use of brain-reading as lie detection include misapplications due to adoption of the technology before its reliability and validity can be properly assessed and due to misunderstanding of the technology, and privacy concerns due to unprecedented access to individual's private thoughts. However, it has been noted that the use of polygraph lie detection carries similar concerns about the reliability of the results and violation of privacy.
Brain-reading has also been proposed as a method of improving human-machine interfaces, by the use of EEG to detect relevant brain states of a human. In recent years, there has been a rapid increase in patents for technology involved in reading brainwaves, rising from fewer than 400 from 2009–2012 to 1600 in 2014. These include proposed ways to control video games via brain waves and "neuro-marketing" to determine someone's thoughts about a new product or advertisement.
Emotiv Systems, an Australian electronics company, has demonstrated a headset that can be trained to recognize a user's thought patterns for different commands. Tan Le demonstrated the headset's ability to manipulate virtual objects on screen, and discussed various future applications for such brain-computer interface devices, from powering wheel chairs to replacing the mouse and keyboard.
It is possible to track which of two forms of rivalrous binocular illusions a person was subjectively experiencing from fMRI signals.
When humans think of an object, such as a screwdriver, many different areas of the brain activate. Marcel Just and his colleague, Tom Mitchell, have used fMRI brain scans to teach a computer to identify the various parts of the brain associated with specific thoughts. This technology also yielded a discovery: similar thoughts in different human brains are surprisingly similar neurologically. To illustrate this, Just and Mitchell used their computer to predict, based on nothing but fMRI data, which of several images a volunteer was thinking about. The computer was 100% accurate, but so far the machine is only distinguishing between 10 images.
The category of event which a person freely recalls can be identified from fMRI before they say what they remembered.
December 16, 2015, a study conducted by Toshimasa Yamazaki at Kyushu Institute of Technology found that during a rock-paper-scissors game a computer was able to determine the choice made by the subjects before they moved their hand. An EEG was used to measure activity in the Broca's area to see the words two seconds before the words were uttered.
On 31 January 2012 Brian Pasley and colleagues of University of California Berkeley published their paper in PLoS Biology wherein subjects' internal neural processing of auditory information was decoded and reconstructed as sound on computer by gathering and analyzing electrical signals directly from subjects' brains. The research team conducted their studies on the superior temporal gyrus, a region of the brain that is involved in higher order neural processing to make semantic sense from auditory information. The research team used a computer model to analyze various parts of the brain that might be involved in neural firing while processing auditory signals. Using the computational model, scientists were able to identify the brain activity involved in processing auditory information when subjects were presented with recording of individual words. Later, the computer model of auditory information processing was used to reconstruct some of the words back into sound based on the neural processing of the subjects. However the reconstructed sounds were not of good quality and could be recognized only when the audio wave patterns of the reconstructed sound were visually matched with the audio wave patterns of the original sound that was presented to the subjects. However this research marks a direction towards more precise identification of neural activity in cognition.
Some researchers in 2008 were able to predict, with 60% accuracy, whether a subject was going to push a button with their left or right hand. This is notable, not just because the accuracy is better than chance, but also because the scientists were able to make these predictions up to 10 seconds before the subject acted – well before the subject felt they had decided. This data is even more striking in light of other research suggesting that the decision to move, and possibly the ability to cancel that movement at the last second, may be the results of unconscious processing.
John Dylan-Haynes has also demonstrated that fMRI can be used to identify whether a volunteer is about to add or subtract two numbers in their head.
Predictive processing in the brain
Neural decoding techniques have been used to test theories about the predictive brain, and to investigate how top-down predictions affect brain areas such as the visual cortex. Studies using fMRI decoding techniques have found that predictable sensory events and the expected consequences of our actions are better decoded in visual brain areas, suggesting that prediction 'sharpens' representations in line with expectations.
Just and Mitchell also claim they are beginning to be able to identify kindness, hypocrisy, and love in the brain.
In 2013 a project led by University of California Berkeley professor John Chuang published findings on the feasibility of brainwave-based computer authentication as a substitute for passwords. Improvements in the use of biometrics for computer authentication has continually improved since the 1980s, but this research team was looking for a method faster and less intrusive than today's retina scans, fingerprinting, and voice recognition. The technology chosen to improve security measures is an electroencephalogram (EEG), or brainwave measurer, to improve passwords into "pass thoughts." Using this method Chuang and his team were able to customize tasks and their authentication thresholds to the point where they were able to reduce error rates under 1%, significantly better than other recent methods. In order to better attract users to this new form of security the team is still researching mental tasks that are enjoyable for the user to perform while having their brainwaves identified. In the future this method could be as cheap, accessible, and straightforward as thought itself.
John-Dylan Haynes states that fMRI can also be used to identify recognition in the brain. He provides the example of a criminal being interrogated about whether he recognizes the scene of the crime or murder weapons.
Methods of analysis
In classification, a pattern of activity across multiple voxels is used to determine the particular class from which the stimulus was drawn. Many studies have classified visual stimuli, but this approach has also been used to classify cognitive states.
In reconstruction brain reading the aim is to create a literal picture of the image that was presented. Early studies used voxels from early visual cortex areas (V1, V2, and V3) to reconstruct geometric stimuli made up of flickering checkerboard patterns.
Brain-reading accuracy is increasing steadily as the quality of the data and the complexity of the decoding algorithms improve. In one recent experiment it was possible to identify which single image was being seen from a set of 120. In another it was possible to correctly identify 90% of the time which of two categories the stimulus came and the specific semantic category (out of 23) of the target image 40% of the time.
It has been noted that so far brain-reading is limited. "In practice, exact reconstructions are impossible to achieve by any reconstruction algorithm on the basis of brain activity signals acquired by fMRI. This is because all reconstructions will inevitably be limited by inaccuracies in the encoding models and noise in the measured signals. Our results[who?] demonstrate that the natural image prior is a powerful (if unconventional) tool for mitigating the effects of these fundamental limitations. A natural image prior with only six million images is sufficient to produce reconstructions that are structurally and semantically similar to a target image."
With brain scanning technology becoming increasingly accurate, experts predict important debates over how and when it should be used. One potential area of application is criminal law. Haynes states that simply refusing to use brain scans on suspects also prevents the wrongly accused from proving their innocence. US scholars generally believe that involuntary brain reading, and involuntary polygraph tests, would violate the 5th Amendment's right to not self incriminate. One perspective is to consider whether brain imaging is like testimony, or instead like DNA, blood, or semen. Paul Root Wolpe, director of the Center for Ethics at Emory University in Atlanta predicts that this question will be decided by a Supreme Court case.
In other countries outside the United States, thought identification has already been used in criminal law. In 2008 an Indian woman was convicted of murder after an EEG of her brain allegedly revealed that she was familiar with the circumstances surrounding the poisoning of her ex-fiancé. Some neuroscientists and legal scholars doubt the validity of using thought identification as a whole for anything past research on the nature of deception and the brain.
The Economist cautioned people to be "afraid" of the future impact, and some ethicists argue that privacy laws should protect private thoughts. Legal scholar Hank Greely argues that the court systems could benefit from such technology, and neuroethicist Julian Savulescu states that brain data is not fundamentally different from other types of evidence. In Nature, journalist Liam Drew writes about emerging projects to attach brain-reading devices to speech synthesizers or other output devices for the benefit of tetraplegics. Such devices could create concerns of accidentally broadcasting the patient's "inner thoughts" rather than merely conscious speech.
Psychologist John-Dylan Haynes experienced breakthroughs in brain imaging research in 2006 by using fMRI. This research included new findings on visual object recognition, tracking dynamic mental processes, lie detecting, and decoding unconscious processing. The combination of these four discoveries revealed such a significant amount of information about an individual's thoughts that Haynes termed it "brain reading".
The fMRI has allowed research to expand by significant amounts because it can track the activity in an individual's brain by measuring the brain's blood flow. It is currently thought to be the best method for measuring brain activity, which is why it has been used in multiple research experiments in order to improve the understanding of how doctors and psychologists can identify thoughts.
In a 2020 study, AI using implanted electrodes could correctly transcribe a sentence read aloud from a fifty-sentence test set 97% of the time, given 40 minutes of training data per participant.
Experts are unsure of how far thought identification can expand, but Marcel Just believed in 2014 that in 3–5 years there will be a machine that is able to read complex thoughts such as 'I hate so-and-so'.
Donald Marks, founder and chief science officer of MMT, is working on playing back thoughts individuals have after they have already been recorded.
Researchers at the University of California Berkeley have already been successful in forming, erasing, and reactivating memories in rats. Marks says they are working on applying the same techniques to humans. This discovery could be monumental for war veterans who suffer from PTSD.
- Bayesian approaches to brain function
- Mind uploading
- Minority Report (film)
- Neural decoding
- Thought recording and reproduction device
- Haynes, John-Dylan; Geraint, Rees. "Decoding mental states from brain activity in humans". Nature Reviews. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
- The Guardian, "The brain scan that can read people's intentions"
- Naselaris, Thomas; Prenger, Ryan J.; Kay, Kendrick N.; Oliver, Michael; Gallant, Jack L. (2009). "Bayesian Reconstruction of Natural Images from Human Brain Activity". Neuron. 63 (6): 902–15. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.09.006. PMC 5553889. PMID 19778517.
- IBM Patent Application: Retrieving mental images of faces from the human brain
- Nishimoto, Shinji; Vu, An T.; Naselaris, Thomas; Benjamini, Yuval; Yu, Bin; Gallant, Jack L. (2011), "Reconstructing Visual Experiences from Brain Activity Evoked by Natural Movies", Current Biology, 21 (19): 1641–1646, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.031, PMC 3326357, PMID 21945275
- "American Blog, Breakthrough Could Enable Others to Watch Your Dreams and Memories [Video], Philip Yam". Archived from the original on 20 July 2012. Retrieved 21 July 2019.
- Nishimoto et al. uploaded video, "Nishimoto.etal.2011.3Subjects.mpeg" on Youtube
- Wolpe, P. R.; Foster, K. R. & Langleben, D. D. (2005). "Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: promises and perils". The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB. 5 (2): 39–49. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.728.9280. doi:10.1080/15265160590923367. PMID 16036700. S2CID 219640810.
- Farwell, Lawrence A.; Richardson, Drew C.; Richardson, Graham M. (5 December 2012). "Brain fingerprinting field studies comparing P300-MERMER and P300 brainwave responses in the detection of concealed information". Cognitive Neurodynamics. 7 (4): 263–299. doi:10.1007/s11571-012-9230-0. PMC 3713201. PMID 23869200.
- Arstila, V. & Scott, F. (2011). "Brain Reading and Mental Privacy" (PDF). TRAMES: A Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences. 15 (2): 204–212. doi:10.3176/tr.2011.2.08.
- Kirchner, E. A.; Kim, S. K.; Straube, S.; Seeland, A.; Wöhrle, H.; Krell, M. M.; Tabie, M.; Fahle, M. (2013). "On the Applicability of Brain Reading for Predictive Human-Machine Interfaces in Robotics". PLOS ONE. 8 (12): e81732. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081732. PMC 3864841. PMID 24358125.
- "Surge in U.S. 'brain-reading' patents". BBC.com. 7 May 2015.
- Tan Le: A headset that reads your brainwaves
- Haynes, J; Rees, G (2005). "Predicting the Stream of Consciousness from Activity in Human Visual Cortex". Current Biology. 15 (14): 1301–7. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.06.026. PMID 16051174. S2CID 6456352.
- 60 Minutes "Technology that can read your mind"
- Polyn, S. M.; Natu, VS; Cohen, JD; Norman, KA (2005). "Category-Specific Cortical Activity Precedes Retrieval During Memory Search". Science. 310 (5756): 1963–6. doi:10.1126/science.1117645. PMID 16373577.
- "Silent Speech BCI - An investigation for practical problems". IEICE Technical Committee. 16 December 2015. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
- Danigelis, Alyssa (7 January 2016). "Mind-Reading Computer Knows What You're About to Say". Discovery News. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
- "頭の中の言葉 解読 障害者と意思疎通、ロボット操作も 九工大・山崎教授ら" (in Japanese). Nishinippon Shimbun. 4 January 2016. Archived from the original on 17 January 2016. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
- Suppes, Patrick; Perreau-Guimaraes, Marcos; Wong, Dik Kin (2009). "Partial Orders of Similarity Differences Invariant Between EEG-Recorded Brain and Perceptual Representations of Language". Neural Computation. 21 (11): 3228–69. doi:10.1162/neco.2009.04-08-764. PMID 19686069. S2CID 18097705.
- Suppes, Patrick; Han, Bing; Epelboim, Julie; Lu, Zhong-Lin (1999). "Invariance of brain-wave representations of simple visual images and their names". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 96 (25): 14658–63. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.25.14658. PMC 24492. PMID 10588761.
- Pasley, BN; David, SV; Mesgarani, N; Flinker, A; Shamma, SA; et al. (2012). "Reconstructing Speech from Human Auditory Cortex". PLOS Biol. 10 (1): e1001251. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001251. PMC 3269422. PMID 22303281.
-  Science decodes 'internal voices' BBC News 31 January 2012
-  Secrets of the inner voice unlocked 1 Feb 2012
- Soon, C.; Brass, M.; Heinze, H.; Haynes, J. (2008). "Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain". Nature Neuroscience. 11 (5): 543–545. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.520.2204. doi:10.1038/nn.2112. PMID 18408715. S2CID 2652613.
- Kühn, S.; Brass, M. (2009). "Retrospective construction of the judgment of free choice". Consciousness and Cognition. 18 (1): 12–21. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2008.09.007. PMID 18952468. S2CID 9086887.
- Matsuhashi, M.; Hallett, M. (2008). "The timing of the conscious intention to move". European Journal of Neuroscience. 28 (11): 2344–2351. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06525.x. PMC 4747633. PMID 19046374.
- Kok, Peter; Jehee, Janneke; de Lange, Floris (2012). "Less Is More: Expectation Sharpens Representations in the Primary Visual Cortex". Neuron. 75 (2): 265–270. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.034. ISSN 0896-6273. PMID 22841311.
- Yon, Daniel; Gilbert, Sam J.; de Lange, Floris P.; Press, Clare (2018). "Action sharpens sensory representations of expected outcomes". Nature Communications. 9 (1): 4288. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06752-7. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 6191413. PMID 30327503.
- Chu, Carlton; Ni, Yizhao; Tan, Geoffrey; Saunders, Craig J.; Ashburner, John (2010). "Kernel regression for fMRI pattern prediction". NeuroImage. 56 (2): 662–673. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.058. PMC 3084459. PMID 20348000.
- "NEW RESEARCH: COMPUTERS THAT CAN IDENTIFY YOU BY YOUR THOUGHTS". UC Berkeley School of Information. UC Berkeley. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
- Kamitani, Yukiyasu; Tong, Frank (2005). "Decoding the visual and subjective contents of the human brain". Nature Neuroscience. 8 (5): 679–85. doi:10.1038/nn1444. PMC 1808230. PMID 15852014.
- Miyawaki, Y; Uchida, H; Yamashita, O; Sato, M; Morito, Y; Tanabe, H; Sadato, N; Kamitani, Y (2008). "Visual Image Reconstruction from Human Brain Activity using a Combination of Multiscale Local Image Decoders". Neuron. 60 (5): 915–29. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.004. PMID 19081384. S2CID 17327816.
- Thirion, Bertrand; Duchesnay, Edouard; Hubbard, Edward; Dubois, Jessica; Poline, Jean-Baptiste; Lebihan, Denis; Dehaene, Stanislas (2006). "Inverse retinotopy: Inferring the visual content of images from brain activation patterns". NeuroImage. 33 (4): 1104–16. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.062. PMID 17029988. S2CID 13361917.
- Farwell, Lawrence A., Drew C. Richardson, and Graham M. Richardson. 2012. "Brain Fingerprinting Field Studies Comparing P300-MERMER and P300 Brainwave Responses in the Detection of Concealed Information." Cognitive Neurodynamics 7(4):263–99. Retrieved (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11571-012-9230-0).
- Kay, Kendrick N.; Naselaris, Thomas; Prenger, Ryan J.; Gallant, Jack L. (2008). "Identifying natural images from human brain activity". Nature. 452 (7185): 352–5. doi:10.1038/nature06713. PMC 3556484. PMID 18322462.
- Allen, Ronald J., and M. Kristin Mace. "The Self-Incrimination Clause Explained and Its Future Predicted." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) 94, no. 2 (2004): 243-294.
- Brennan-Marquez, Kiel. "A modest defense of mind reading." Yale JL & Tech. 15 (2012): 214. "Ronald Allen and Kristen Mace discern 'universal agreement' that the (Mind Reader Machine) is unacceptable."
- "How Technology May Soon "Read" Your Mind". CBS News. CBS. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
- Stix, Gary. "Can fMRI Really Tell If You're Lying?". Scientific American. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
- Smith, Kerri (24 October 2013). "Brain decoding: Reading minds". Nature News. 502 (7472): 428–430. doi:10.1038/502428a. PMID 24153277. Retrieved 14 May 2020.
- Drew, Liam (24 July 2019). "The ethics of brain–computer interfaces". Nature. 571 (7766): S19–S21. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-02214-2. PMID 31341310. Retrieved 14 May 2020.
- Saenz, Aaron. "fMRI Reads the Images in Your Brain – We Know What You're Looking At". SingularityHUB. Singularity University. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
- "Scientists develop AI that can turn brain activity into text". the Guardian. 30 March 2020. Retrieved 31 March 2020.
- Cuthbertson, Anthony (29 August 2014). "Mind Reader: Meet The Man Who Records and Stores Your Thoughts, Dreams and Memories". International Business Times. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
- Brain scanners can tell what you're thinking about New Scientist article on brain-reading 28 October 2009
- 2007 Pittsburgh Brain Activity Interpretation Competition:Interpreting subject-driven actions and sensory experience in a rigorously characterized virtual world