"Researchers Can Identify You by Your Brain Waves with 100 Percent Accuracy." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 18 Apr. 2016. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
A team of researchers at Binghamton University have just used computer systems to identify the "brainprints" of volunteers with one hundred percent accuracy. Images were displayed to the participants to determine their responses. Each of them was unique, and this was reflected in their brain activity. They have surpassed a their previous study similar to this where attempts to identify the people have only reached 97 percent. "When you take hundreds of these images, where every person is going to feel differently about each individual one, then you can be really accurate in identifying which person it was who looked at them just by their brain activity," said Laszlo. Words would also produce distinctive activity in each brain. For example, although there is a common understanding of the words “conundrum” or “Anne Hathaway,” an individual’s perception will vary. This astonishing new mechanism has instigated controversy as to whether or not it will be used as a crucial security tool either in the near or far future.
The study revealed more about the true inner workings of the most complex composition of matter in existence in such a way that it gave insight into how the brain receives specific stimuli and at which parts of the brain they are processed in. Although we have identified lobes of the brain with a common function, this study investigates just how might those common functions differ between different individuals and to exactly what degree. Another significance to this study is the possibility of its use for security in the future. "It's a big deal going from 97 to 100 percent because we imagine the applications for this technology being for high-security situations, like ensuring the person going into the Pentagon or the nuclear launch bay is the right person," said Laszlo. "You don't want to be 97 percent accurate for that, you want to be 100 percent accurate." It seems futuristic and a bit frightening for airports to be scanning your brains, but its reliable mechanisms (such as always avoiding identification theft as it is a brain) could serve to protect a nation rather than an individual’s privacy.
The article could have elaborated on exactly which substances were used to detect activity in response to each stimuli and more about which modifications helped the study jump from ninety-seven percent to one hundred percent. It did include the most important effects of the study and how it will impact society in the future. I liked the different points of views from each of the researchers--the quotes related to the audience to make the piece more compelling.
Ford Neild April 28, 2016
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event 19 Comment
Dear CSB,
I felt that, overall, you explained the article in very concise manner without skipping over any of the essential details, as many people often do when summarizing. First, you were able to support your claim by inserting statistics and facts from the article, something that many people struggle with in these current events. Prior to reading your summary I would have never guess that computer systems could be used to track people brain waves and your statics helped me consider this exciting possibility. Second, you described the scientist’s viewpoint in a very interesting way that held the reader's attention. Often people do not sound passionate when arguing scientists opinions, but you did a fantastic job of that in this description. One reason you were able to do this is through the use of the quote,"It's a big deal going from 97 to 100 percent because we imagine the applications for this technology being for high-security situations, like ensuring the person going into the Pentagon or the nuclear launch bay is the right person," said Laszlo. "You don't want to be 97 percent accurate for that, you want to be 100 percent accurate." It helped add a scientist's description that further captured the reader and added a new perspective. Thirdly, your descriptive vocabulary showed real depth of understanding on your part and added additional detail that helped to create a clear image of this previously confusing article.
Though, overall this article was very well written, there is room for improvement yet. Previously, I had commented that your descriptive vocabulary was intelligent and descriptive, however, for many of these words, they were too complex. To fix this, I recommend putting in parentheses the definition of the word. For example, I was not familiar with the technical definition of brain waves, although I have heard it used colloquially before. After doing personal research I found that brain waves, or Neural oscillation is rhythmic or repetitive neural activity in the central nervous system. Neural tissue can generate oscillatory activity in many ways, driven either by mechanisms within individual neurons or by interactions between neurons. In individual neurons, oscillations can appear either as oscillations in membrane potential or as rhythmic patterns of action potentials, which then produce oscillatory activation of post-synaptic neurons. In your relevance paragraph, you consistently mention computer systems that were used to monitor people's unique brain waves. I was disappointed that you did not elaborate on at least some of the technology behind this feat. If this was not mentioned in the article, I recommend doing independent research in order to fix this issue.
From your summary I learned a lot. Specifically, I was amazed that all of the trial patients had such unique brain waves in response to the same words. Personally,, so this article concerned me deeply. As previously mentioned, prior to reading this article I would have never guessed that we had the technology to monitor people's brainwaves and be able to identify the person based on the brain wave.
"Researchers Can Identify You by Your Brain Waves with 100 Percent Accuracy." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 18 Apr. 2016. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160418120608.htm
Nick Saluti
ReplyDeleteYou did a good job comparing the recent study to previous ones, as well as the new advantages to the 100% scans. You did a good job connecting the implications of the 100% scans to the security field in an intelligent way. You did a good job tying in brain anatomy and structure in order to understand the brain scans.
You could have discussed the researchers more clearly, how many people were involved? You also could have discussed the group of people that were scanned. How many males? How many Females?
The implications for the security field really surprised me. If this technology really can distinguish between individuals with clarity it seems like it will be an important step forward
"Researchers Can Identify You by Your Brain Waves with 100 Percent Accuracy." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 18 Apr. 2016. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160418120608.htm
CSB,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your review of the article: “Researchers Can Identify You by Your Brainwaves with 100 Percent Accuracy." This article is a very good choice because many advancements seem to be coming out in brain observation and mapping and as you mention in the article, a brain could be one of the most secure identity checking mechanisms we have. I liked how you included the specific limitations of this technology in that it is not really usable yet. I also liked how you specifically cited how this new information changed our previous knowledge and abilities to identify a brain from 97% to 100%. I also thought you did a very good job at summarizing all of the details in the article and including numerous facts and statistics making your review more detailed, and credible. This review was overall very well written and thought out and I thought you did a good job at displaying your thoughts in a descriptive yet concise manner.
I felt that the primary problem with your review was in your relevance paragraph. It was simply too short and lacked sufficient detail. Although you did mention how it could be used for security purposes, it would have been helpful to have examples of how this would happen and could be useful efficiently. I also felt like your summary was a little short although i did get a fairly general idea of the topic. I think a few more facts or details would have made your review just that much better.
Overall I really enjoyed reading your review and was especially interested by this topic because I think it is cool that we can identify someone based on their brain activity. My only major questions would be: is there a way to wirelessly read a brain? And how many images or words does someone need to react to to be identifiable? I feel that these questions will be important in the usefulness of this new development in the real world.
Christina,
ReplyDeleteI thought you did an excellent job with your review. One area in which you were particularly strong was in the comprehensiveness with which you wrote. For example, you effectively described the advantages of the new scans by comparing the results of the new studies to those of old studies. Another area in which you were especially strong was in tying your findings back to the classroom: you were able to tie much of your findings to the physical anatomy of the brain, which I found fascinating. Lastly, I felt that your choice of article was especially strong. The field of neuroscience is quickly developing and I found your article very interesting.
Although your review was strong, there are a few small changes you could make to further strengthen your writing. For example, your relevance paragraph was a little lackluster, in part due to the fact you mentioned relevance tangentially throughout your piece. For this reason, further organization would prove to help strengthen your piece. Apart from that, the only area I beleive you could have improved in is describing the study. Although this is not particularly significant, I would find some of these details interesting.
Again, great job. One thing I learned from your review is that we can, with 100% confidence, distinguish between individuals using brain waves.
Work Cited:
"Researchers Can Identify You by Your Brain Waves with 100 Percent Accuracy." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 18 Apr. 2016. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160418120608.htm