Hmm, I see, I think understand a bit better now -- thanks.
Is it fair to say that their claims about spatial resolution being >>> existing EEG options are jumping the gun? If I understand correctly, you need to be targeting individual 1mm^2 regions with individual acoustic lenses, which means 17,000 channels would required 17,000 separate, uniquely-tuned ultrasound emitters, yes? Even if that's possible without messing up the data (the MHz range is big, but is it that big?) it seems like a trivial impossibility to fit that in one headset -- even the standard 32-64 EEG channels alone seem like a long shot. But maybe I'm overly cynical, or one emitter could be used to usefully excite multiple regions at once?
Another oddity in that paper is that it reads like we're trying to find persistent signals in the brain, like a needle in a haystack, whereas my understanding was that the field is moving decisively towards tracking signal changes over time in a given region. Is my intuition correct that accounting for a moving target would add considerable complexity to this approach?
Either way, thanks for sharing the link. Definitely thought-provoking stuff...
alt Hacker News
Hmm, I see, I think understand a bit better now -- thanks.
Is it fair to say that their claims about spatial resolution being >>> existing EEG options are jumping the gun? If I understand correctly, you need to be targeting individual 1mm^2 regions with individual acoustic lenses, which means 17,000 channels would required 17,000 separate, uniquely-tuned ultrasound emitters, yes? Even if that's possible without messing up the data (the MHz range is big, but is it that big?) it seems like a trivial impossibility to fit that in one headset -- even the standard 32-64 EEG channels alone seem like a long shot. But maybe I'm overly cynical, or one emitter could be used to usefully excite multiple regions at once?
Another oddity in that paper is that it reads like we're trying to find persistent signals in the brain, like a needle in a haystack, whereas my understanding was that the field is moving decisively towards tracking signal changes over time in a given region. Is my intuition correct that accounting for a moving target would add considerable complexity to this approach?
Either way, thanks for sharing the link. Definitely thought-provoking stuff...