I'm thinking so loudly I can't hear myself think

March 25, 2006 2:50 PM

NASA researchers can hear what you're saying, even when you don't make a sound. When we speak in our minds, we send weak electrical signals to our larynx and tounge. Tricksy new technology is able to interpret these micromovements into the words we were thinking.
posted by 6am (46 comments total)

speaker for the dead anyone?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 2:52 PM on March 25, 2006

All they would hear is me humming "Check Mr. Popeye" over and over again.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:01 PM on March 25, 2006

"I know you can hear my thoughts, boy. Meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow."
posted by Faint of Butt at 3:02 PM on March 25, 2006

Sorry, buddy, you're out of a job.

Seriously, this is pretty cool. (And maybe kinda scary. Tin chokers anyone?)
posted by kosher_jenny at 3:04 PM on March 25, 2006

Under optimal conditions normal speech-recognition software that works with sound is 95% accurate.

So what does "95% accurate" mean, exactly? 95% of the sentences are parsed correctly? 95% of the words? 95% of the phonemes? Or what?

And why is it that 95% of all articles on computer linguistics invariably contain such an utterly meaningless statement?
posted by sour cream at 3:10 PM on March 25, 2006

it's outrageously cool! one step closer to being able to record sounds directly from your mind :D
posted by 6am at 3:10 PM on March 25, 2006

Just move your tongue around randomly while you think, guys! Or else, you know, don't accidentally stumble into a sophisticated setup of electrodes and analytical computers.
posted by jenovus at 3:12 PM on March 25, 2006

Many people subvocalize when they read. I've heard that in some people silent larynx movement interferes with the proper intake of oxygen and such people tend to fall asleap while reading.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 3:12 PM on March 25, 2006

i imagine such technology could also have far reaching implications for people who can't speak for medical reasons. Also, depending on the speed and improvements in accuracy, i could see it could be useful for military pilots (switching targets, arming weapons, etc)

Hell, i just want it so that i can change the pictures on my rims without taking my hands off the wheel.
posted by quin at 3:13 PM on March 25, 2006

And why is it that 95% of all articles on computer linguistics invariably contain such an utterly meaningless statement?

What, articles aimed at people with actual linguistics-related knowledge in mainstream newspapers? What?!
posted by taursir at 3:15 PM on March 25, 2006

thought crime. heh.
posted by j-urb at 3:21 PM on March 25, 2006

Fuck you, buddy.
posted by anthill at 3:24 PM on March 25, 2006

or, Subvocalize This!
posted by jenovus at 3:32 PM on March 25, 2006

Isn't this a double? I could swear I've read about this before but I'm too lazy to check.
posted by ChasFile at 3:55 PM on March 25, 2006

I wonder how long it'll be until the military starts using this to interrogate prisoners?
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:57 PM on March 25, 2006

I'm sure the boys down at the precinct just can't wait to get their hands on this.
posted by moonbiter at 4:02 PM on March 25, 2006

I'm sure the boys down at the precinct just can't wait to get their hands on this.

For roughly the same reasons that the results of a polygraph test are inadmissable in court as evidence, I'd imagine so too would be "testimony" that came from measurements of nerve impulses.
posted by ChasFile at 4:09 PM on March 25, 2006

Do most people think in words? I think in an abstract, nonverbal way. If it's an occasion where I'm going to express the thought in speech or writing, then I go thru another mental process to select words and decide how to express the thoughts.

Presumably a person would be subject to being spied upon in the way the article describes only when choosing to use language. The article suggests that the research subject was deliberately thinking of words in order to have them detected.
posted by jam_pony at 4:09 PM on March 25, 2006

Huh. I wonder if some groups might start thinking along the lines of "Polygraph 2.0" with this technology...
posted by Gator at 5:01 PM on March 25, 2006

Just like David Brin's Earth.
posted by sourwookie at 5:19 PM on March 25, 2006

chasfile, I found it on digg.
posted by 6am at 5:34 PM on March 25, 2006

Wait a minute. This works, even WITH a tinfoil hat?

Must think non-thoughts.

Hey, nice camel toe. Was that out loud?
posted by BillyElmore at 6:10 PM on March 25, 2006

Polygraphs are not admissible in court not because of the fallibility of the machines (after all, polygraphs are far more accurate than eye-witness testimony, for example), but because they would put defense attorneys out of business. If polygraphs were admissible, a jury would decide based almost exlusively on the machine. Legislators and judges are mostly lawyers. They make laws that keep lawyers in business. Therefore, polygraphs are inadmissible.
posted by flarbuse at 6:23 PM on March 25, 2006

Wow. That's quite a theory, flarbuse.
posted by ChasFile at 6:47 PM on March 25, 2006

This is polygraph 2.0.
posted by the jam at 7:00 PM on March 25, 2006

Polygraphs may be more relable than eyewitness testimony, but they're both pretty unreliable.

Jam_pony, as far as I can tell, it varies widely from person to person. I think half-verbally, kinda, but I can force myself not to use language while thinking. I have a friend who says he thinks entirely linguistically — not even any visual component. All words. I find this hard to imagine (as it were), but it's what he says.
posted by hattifattener at 7:20 PM on March 25, 2006

Insanely cool, profoundly horrifying.
posted by squirrel at 8:25 PM on March 25, 2006

No, NASA, outer space is that way!
posted by boaz at 8:33 PM on March 25, 2006

I think mostly verbally, so I'd be quite the open book.
posted by Bugbread at 8:41 PM on March 25, 2006

[ ]
posted by emelenjr at 8:43 PM on March 25, 2006

The aplications are endless if this really works!
posted by sameasthem at 9:09 PM on March 25, 2006

I wrote about this last year.

It's still noteworthy though.
posted by troutfishing at 9:16 PM on March 25, 2006

HAL 9000 can do this simply by reading lips, no electrodes required.
posted by Citizen Premier at 10:29 PM on March 25, 2006

I wrote about this last year.

Cassandra was hot, and still no one listened to her. What do you expect?
posted by homunculus at 11:14 PM on March 25, 2006

Wasn't this in an older SF story as well? Maybe something by Heinlein?
posted by bshort at 11:56 PM on March 25, 2006

Japan's NTT Docomo is working on a subvocal mobile phone operated by sensors worn on the fingers and thumb. A speaker grips his face, putting the sensors in contact with the cheekbone, upper lip and chin. So far Docomo's system recognizes the five Japanese vowels 90% of the time.

What's up Matthew Broderick? Go Go Gadget ... Mundane Ubiquity? Day's a' comin' when you're not gonna be so awesome anymore, motherfucker.
posted by saysthis at 1:05 AM on March 26, 2006

interesting. not only do I only think in words, I find it impossible to imagine what non-verbal thought would be. language = thought. at least for me. If I had something like this woven into my clothes I could record every thought I have, imagine no more forgetting a good idea because there isn't a keyboard handy (I lose paper so fast that I've come to suspect the presence of invisible paper-eating critters in my pockets).
posted by Grod at 4:19 AM on March 26, 2006

Subvocal communication is regular fare in many of the cyberpunk classics by Gibson, Sterling, Stephenson, Rucker and others.

It's a pretty key piece of tech for really useful wearable computers or other hybrid information devices. It solves a very basic I/O problem, especially as it pertains to mobile devices, or devices used in social situations.

While SMS/text is a useful alternative to voice, especially in social situations, and mini-keyboards are cool, this would be a really good way to enable silent but rapid communication.

Except instead of adapting to people that look like they're totally nuts and talking to themselves while wearing nearly invisible earpieces or headsets, we'll have to adapt to inattentive people staring blankly into space and making small mouth movements like they were chewing cud or something.

Just let me know when I can buy a useable, useful subvocal I/O device, okay?
posted by loquacious at 4:47 AM on March 26, 2006

Grod: So you never think visio-spatially?
posted by Freaky at 6:43 AM on March 26, 2006

Grod said 'not only do I only think in words, I find it impossible to imagine what non-verbal thought would be. language = thought.'

Same here. For year's when folk spoke of 'seeing' something in their 'mind's eye' I assumed they meant describing the thing in language - the only time I see things in my head is when I'm dreaming or on hallucinogens, no visual component to my usual thought processes whatsoever. Which means one of these machines would be a bloody nightmare for me in some situations, but I'd love one so I could just lie on the sofa think-writing (though I don't understand how this technology could possibly cope with simultaneous thought-streams).
posted by jack_mo at 7:13 AM on March 26, 2006

Grod, think of a chair, that's non-verbal thought. I've been doing some wood working lately (building myself a morris chair) and I was amazed at how much non-verbal thought was involved. I can think of how a joint looks isometrically and figure out where how to jig up the piece for routing or making tenons or what have you.
posted by substrate at 7:20 AM on March 26, 2006

That's also how I made it through visual communications in engineering school. I could either take the isometric view and visualize how the plan views would look or vice versa. This made the drafting process much easier and got around my relative lack of hand eye coordination.
posted by substrate at 7:22 AM on March 26, 2006

Freaky, not as far as I can determine, when I need to visualize something I draw it or model it in 3d, so I guess part of me must be thinking that way. For navigation I go by landmarks, street signs, etc. In a new place I'll remember my way as a series of left/right/up/down steps and whatever I saw on my way. Say I pass a cherry tree, I don't really remember it as an image but as a cherry tree and what state it is in. However, I could later sit down and draw that tree but I don't "see" it as I understand people to mean when they say they "see" something in their mind's eye. I can construct an image in my head but it doesn't have depth, color, or anything, its a flow of words and associations. I suspect I do think visually on a level I can't consciously access, or only access linguistically. The reason I believe this is the aforementioned drawing and modeling ability. Probably more than you ever wanted to know.
posted by Grod at 7:24 AM on March 26, 2006

Just move your tongue around randomly while you think, guys!

Chewing gum is the new tinfoil hat!
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 8:52 AM on March 26, 2006

Something much like this is in Piers Anthony's Kirlian Quest trilogy.
Did I say that out loud?
posted by Aknaton at 9:11 AM on March 26, 2006

i wonder if it works when you read something to yourself?

Also might be interesting to have it record during sleep.
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 10:37 AM on March 26, 2006