Brain Waves

There is an interesting article in today's Globe and Mail about advertising juggernaut (they would probably say "media research firm") Nielsen investing in NeuroFocus; a company that specializes in monitoring neurophysiological patterns and phenomena. This is an alternative to focus groups, surveys, and other antiquated methods and metrics that can help organizations gauge emotional response and engagement.

The space organizations like NeuroFocus (and there are others) occupy is primarily for advertising and product development purposes. While this makes indisputable sense, I think it's a narrow view of what we can do with people's brainwaves.

What about meetings? I wax prophetic about the value of audience response nearly every day. But my expertise in that arena would become obsolete as quickly as your brain can transmit signal to your mouth to make you say "unemployable" if the cool little keypads were replaced with non-invasive brain imaging devices, or cool helmets that monitor engagement, emotional response, and other physiologically immaculate indications.

There are obviously challenges to what is a step towards reading minds in a meeting. I would definitely be skeptical of what's being monitored and who would know what about my thoughts and perceptions. Skepticism could be tremendously damaging to the sense of (damn, this soft word again) trust in a meeting. And perhaps there is such a thing as too much truth. I firmly believe that if there are issues that exist in the minds of meeting attendees, then they need to be surfaced, addressed, and discussed. But even as this happens I can mask my irrational disdain for others, that if surfaced, wouldn't help anyone.

I would love to one day be a part of the strategic alignment meeting where the CEO presents the plan, and turns to the screen to see a perfectly clear picture of whether people buy into the plan, and if they think it's feasible. It might not be soon, but we've got to start thinking about neurophysiological science's implications in collaborative efforts. After all, a big reason why physical meetings still exist is that our brains react differently when there is a human being in front of us that our various senses can perceive. We actually stimulate and fire different synapses in our brain than is possible without that sensory engagement.

For now I'm kind of glad. The information - from the smell sense in particular - that would engage those synapses and the resulting opinion if you were experiencing me say this in person today instead of reading it would sabotage the message. That's correct, I was at a St. Patrick's Day party at Steamwhistle brewery last night. The availability of beer would have registered a powerful emotional response with the NeuroFocus technology.

Neurotechnology and Communication

Back in May of '08, I posted this blog about monkeys using their thoughts to control machines. It is based on a New York Times article. There are practical prosthetic applications, and the video is pure hilarity, but the relevance to communication and collaboration was less obvious to me at the time of writing. But in a wonderful coincidence, this article and concept have re-entered my life, and there is great clarity around how it applies to communication.

I was "Session Captain" at a few sessions in Boston recently. See the 8:45 Focus Session on Neurotechnology at this year's CIMIT Innovation Congress. Note that the presenter was none other than John Donaghue, PhD, of Brown University. Donaghue is a leading expert in brain science, and was referenced and quoted in the NYTimes article that the previous post was based upon!

In the session, Donaghue shared stories told through media and personal accounts (masterful presenter, check him out if you have the chance and take note of his style) how minuscule brain implants can interpret signals from brain cells that are indicating to limbs - whether or not they even exist or function - how they should operate. These same implants can take that information and instruct prosthetics or say, a cursor on a computer screen, to move in a certain manner. We watched a video of a man with no control of his limbs control a cursor to draw a circle on a screen, directed only by thought. It was pretty unsuccessful his first try, but he was able to clear his screen and by the third attempt he had produced what you would recognize as a circle. Incredible.

Don't worry, I'm getting to the communication piece...

Also on the panel was epileptologist Dr. Anthony L Ritaccio from Albany Medical College. Instead of using invasive chips, Dr. Ritaccio is monitoring brain waves (see relevant posts here) to try and predict the onset of seizures. This is leading edge research, but another thing he said that stuck with me was how this kind of technology can one day do more than replace motor skills and forecast seizures. It can change the way our race communicates.

Since the early days of the homo sapien, we as a species have communicated syntactically. The way we communicate has not changed much since we were cavemen. We use symbols and noises. That could all change though. Advances in neurotechnology could see us mastering semantic communication in the future, sharing concepts with one another without common language or background. The possibilities for collaboration are limitless if/when this is achieved. I hope I live to see (or see? or think? or feel?) it.

Also of interest, all of the experts in these panels cited the multidisciplinary nature of the collaborations taht will need to take place to advance this field as perhaps the greatest challenge. Great recognition for a sometimes underappreciated problem.