|
On December 02 2011 13:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 10:08 talismania wrote:On December 02 2011 10:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Very interesting read, thank you for the heads up about the article. The fact that you are a researcher who likes SC2 tempts me to ask you something, so I'd love to see you thoughts
I'm wondering, what do you think about the idea of removing the motor requirement for SC2? In other words, what do you think about direct control over SC2 units via neuromotor prostheses (NMP)? The reason I'm asking is because one of the important things the article highlights is the motor aspect of SC2's difficulty. It's not like chess, where motor skills aren't really that relevant. Sure, you need basic motor connectivity to play chess, but I would argue that you don't need the refined, pruned, and much more specified corticospinal motor neuronal plasticity that you do need at high level SC2.
So, on to my rationale: It has been demonstrated in mouse, macaque, and human that neuronal ensembles (activation patterns of many neurons firing in concert to some end) unique to specific, intentional motor commands exist at the primary cortex (M1) even when corresponding limbs are no longer present or innervated. Recently, researchers have developed novel strategies combining brain-computer interface technology with algorithms to recognize and record unique, intentional neuronal ensembles at M1 corresponding to unique, intentional movements. Test patients have had electrodes implanted at M1 capable of recording and analyzing cortical motor activity. Using advances in brain-machine interface, NMPs have been developed whereby patients fitted with M1 electrodes can transfer intentional thoughts directly to a machine in order to achieve movement. For example, a patient can move a cursor around a screen based on neuronal firing patterns at the patient's M1 cortical region. First researchers determine which patterns correspond to which commands. Researchers then input these instructions, and then the NMP can match neuronal patterns to "learned" commands, thereby enabling direct neuronal control over machine-assisted movement. Therefore, it would be reasonable to apply this concept of NMP-assisted control of movement to SC2. Specifically, it would be reasonable to develop an NMP that can record neuronal patterns unique to commands in SC2, such as "stutter step marines", or "move units X distance". In theory, any number of complex commands could be matched by statistical analysis to a unique neuronal firing pattern. These patterns could be read by the NMP directly off the player's brain, enabling the player to issue commands to SC2 unfettered by motor-requirements.
So do you think it would be interesting to study SC2 if APM was no issue? It might be a novel way to examine players executing strategy at the highest possible level where literally, there are no mechanical barriers. So long as the player knows what must be done, the player can think, and the task will be executed (provided the NMP is made very well) What makes you think APM is no longer an issue? BCIs are usually placed on the motor cortex, and are thought to primarily decode the urge to execute a command. Therefore a command still has to be executed. APM is not dependent on finger speed - everyone can move their fingers fast enough. APM depends on the brain telling the fingers when to move, and adding a BCI does not change that. Furthermore I've yet to see a BCI that has good enough spatial acuity for resolving individual finger movements at the speeds required. Maybe in the future. Oh but an NMP does change that! Re: BrainGate Consider the simple fact that signals conduct much slower down cortical projection neurons than they do via electrical/machine circuitry. APM would be near instantaneous. It would coincide with thought, thus the physical limit imposed by mashing keys would be gone. Obviously there are no current algorithms designed to recognize and categorize inputs to SC2 games -- yes, it's complicated work. It's not impossible at all though, and to me it's so exciting.
it'd be cool, but i can't see the logic behind your suggestion. yes - it removes the latency between the motor signal and the actual button press by the fingers, but this is the pathway that everyone has to go through and isn't the issue that you're trying to get at (which, if i'm understanding correctly, is the cognitive aspect of the game).
what talismania is saying is that there simply no mechanical limitation to finger speed in SC2, which i think is true. anyone can focus solely on tapping their fingers and it's likely far faster than they can play. i think it's more likely that the roadblock is higher up, somewhere between visual processing and executive control. removing the latency between the final decision to move the finger and the finger press itself will likely not provide a different result.
|
On December 02 2011 13:28 juicyjames wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:24 Supah wrote:
Anyone have it in their cache and able to post the article? It's down for me =[ + Show Spoiler [Image of Article] +When the article is back up I do recommend visiting the actual site and maybe even commenting to show Scientific American that we want more articles like this on their site.
Seconding this - definitely go and comment when its back up to encourage them.
|
This is awesome, Scientific American is an awesome magazine.
|
Link is down at the moment but when it's back up can we at least spotlight this on the frontpage? :D
|
did the power of TL crash scientific american? lol
OP needs more content if this is to be spotlighted imo
|
|
|
Link is broken for me, so that's pretty much all I can say about this thread.
|
On December 02 2011 13:31 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:On December 02 2011 10:08 talismania wrote:On December 02 2011 10:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Very interesting read, thank you for the heads up about the article. The fact that you are a researcher who likes SC2 tempts me to ask you something, so I'd love to see you thoughts
I'm wondering, what do you think about the idea of removing the motor requirement for SC2? In other words, what do you think about direct control over SC2 units via neuromotor prostheses (NMP)? The reason I'm asking is because one of the important things the article highlights is the motor aspect of SC2's difficulty. It's not like chess, where motor skills aren't really that relevant. Sure, you need basic motor connectivity to play chess, but I would argue that you don't need the refined, pruned, and much more specified corticospinal motor neuronal plasticity that you do need at high level SC2.
So, on to my rationale: It has been demonstrated in mouse, macaque, and human that neuronal ensembles (activation patterns of many neurons firing in concert to some end) unique to specific, intentional motor commands exist at the primary cortex (M1) even when corresponding limbs are no longer present or innervated. Recently, researchers have developed novel strategies combining brain-computer interface technology with algorithms to recognize and record unique, intentional neuronal ensembles at M1 corresponding to unique, intentional movements. Test patients have had electrodes implanted at M1 capable of recording and analyzing cortical motor activity. Using advances in brain-machine interface, NMPs have been developed whereby patients fitted with M1 electrodes can transfer intentional thoughts directly to a machine in order to achieve movement. For example, a patient can move a cursor around a screen based on neuronal firing patterns at the patient's M1 cortical region. First researchers determine which patterns correspond to which commands. Researchers then input these instructions, and then the NMP can match neuronal patterns to "learned" commands, thereby enabling direct neuronal control over machine-assisted movement. Therefore, it would be reasonable to apply this concept of NMP-assisted control of movement to SC2. Specifically, it would be reasonable to develop an NMP that can record neuronal patterns unique to commands in SC2, such as "stutter step marines", or "move units X distance". In theory, any number of complex commands could be matched by statistical analysis to a unique neuronal firing pattern. These patterns could be read by the NMP directly off the player's brain, enabling the player to issue commands to SC2 unfettered by motor-requirements.
So do you think it would be interesting to study SC2 if APM was no issue? It might be a novel way to examine players executing strategy at the highest possible level where literally, there are no mechanical barriers. So long as the player knows what must be done, the player can think, and the task will be executed (provided the NMP is made very well) What makes you think APM is no longer an issue? BCIs are usually placed on the motor cortex, and are thought to primarily decode the urge to execute a command. Therefore a command still has to be executed. APM is not dependent on finger speed - everyone can move their fingers fast enough. APM depends on the brain telling the fingers when to move, and adding a BCI does not change that. Furthermore I've yet to see a BCI that has good enough spatial acuity for resolving individual finger movements at the speeds required. Maybe in the future. Oh but an NMP does change that! Re: BrainGate Consider the simple fact that signals conduct much slower down cortical projection neurons than they do via electrical/machine circuitry. APM would be near instantaneous. It would coincide with thought, thus the physical limit imposed by mashing keys would be gone. Obviously there are no current algorithms designed to recognize and categorize inputs to SC2 games -- yes, it's complicated work. It's not impossible at all though, and to me it's so exciting. it'd be cool, but i can't see the logic behind your suggestion. yes - it removes the latency between the motor signal and the actual button press by the fingers, but this is the pathway that everyone has to go through and isn't the issue that you're trying to get at (which, if i'm understanding correctly, is the cognitive aspect of the game). what talismania is saying is that there simply no mechanical limitation to finger speed in SC2, which i think is true. anyone can focus solely on tapping their fingers and it's likely far faster than they can play. i think it's more likely that the roadblock is higher up, somewhere between visual processing and executive control. removing the latency between the final decision to move the finger and the finger press itself will likely not provide a different result.
I think a significant reduction in latency could be achieved via NMP based on ensemble studies in humans. I think it would affect SC2 playing ability. In other words, I think a player with a perfected NMP could achieve better results due to the fact that he would issue more commands per minute.
If you retrain the way in which you issue commands, you achieve a faster rate of issuing commands based on overcoming the need to input signals to the periphery. Rather, you input directly to a computer interface, thus there is a significant reduction in latency. It might not seem like this would be significant, but in fact it could allow a player to totally re-learn how to play SC2, faster. What if a concerted thought, along with its recognized, temporally-dynamic ensemble, achieves several actions normally requiring several motor actions? You can't argue that several motor functions vs. no motor functions is not significant. Depending on how advanced the software or analysis techniques become, you could have a lot of different things being performed simultaneously. Microing separate groups of units, near-synchronously? The fact is that you could achieve this type of near synchronous control of two groups on a screen much more perfectly with no motor requirement. You are right that you can tap your fingers furiously faster than you can issue commands or play... But issuing SC2 commands is not as simple as tapping fingers together as fast as possible. Complex, coordinated movements are required between eye, fingers, and mouse-arm. It would be significant to eliminate all those movements.
|
On December 02 2011 13:54 Stropheum wrote:
Link is broken for me, so that's pretty much all I can say about this thread.
Go to the bottom of the 3rd page to read the article.
|
On December 02 2011 13:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 10:08 talismania wrote:On December 02 2011 10:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Very interesting read, thank you for the heads up about the article. The fact that you are a researcher who likes SC2 tempts me to ask you something, so I'd love to see you thoughts
I'm wondering, what do you think about the idea of removing the motor requirement for SC2? In other words, what do you think about direct control over SC2 units via neuromotor prostheses (NMP)? The reason I'm asking is because one of the important things the article highlights is the motor aspect of SC2's difficulty. It's not like chess, where motor skills aren't really that relevant. Sure, you need basic motor connectivity to play chess, but I would argue that you don't need the refined, pruned, and much more specified corticospinal motor neuronal plasticity that you do need at high level SC2.
So, on to my rationale: It has been demonstrated in mouse, macaque, and human that neuronal ensembles (activation patterns of many neurons firing in concert to some end) unique to specific, intentional motor commands exist at the primary cortex (M1) even when corresponding limbs are no longer present or innervated. Recently, researchers have developed novel strategies combining brain-computer interface technology with algorithms to recognize and record unique, intentional neuronal ensembles at M1 corresponding to unique, intentional movements. Test patients have had electrodes implanted at M1 capable of recording and analyzing cortical motor activity. Using advances in brain-machine interface, NMPs have been developed whereby patients fitted with M1 electrodes can transfer intentional thoughts directly to a machine in order to achieve movement. For example, a patient can move a cursor around a screen based on neuronal firing patterns at the patient's M1 cortical region. First researchers determine which patterns correspond to which commands. Researchers then input these instructions, and then the NMP can match neuronal patterns to "learned" commands, thereby enabling direct neuronal control over machine-assisted movement. Therefore, it would be reasonable to apply this concept of NMP-assisted control of movement to SC2. Specifically, it would be reasonable to develop an NMP that can record neuronal patterns unique to commands in SC2, such as "stutter step marines", or "move units X distance". In theory, any number of complex commands could be matched by statistical analysis to a unique neuronal firing pattern. These patterns could be read by the NMP directly off the player's brain, enabling the player to issue commands to SC2 unfettered by motor-requirements.
So do you think it would be interesting to study SC2 if APM was no issue? It might be a novel way to examine players executing strategy at the highest possible level where literally, there are no mechanical barriers. So long as the player knows what must be done, the player can think, and the task will be executed (provided the NMP is made very well) What makes you think APM is no longer an issue? BCIs are usually placed on the motor cortex, and are thought to primarily decode the urge to execute a command. Therefore a command still has to be executed. APM is not dependent on finger speed - everyone can move their fingers fast enough. APM depends on the brain telling the fingers when to move, and adding a BCI does not change that. Furthermore I've yet to see a BCI that has good enough spatial acuity for resolving individual finger movements at the speeds required. Maybe in the future. Oh but an NMP does change that! Re: BrainGate Consider the simple fact that signals conduct much slower down cortical projection neurons than they do via electrical/machine circuitry. APM would be near instantaneous. It would coincide with thought, thus the physical limit imposed by mashing keys would be gone. As thought commands -- represented by unique neuronal ensembles -- are recognized by the machine, their signal is synchronously transmitted into the game as a command. There is no holdup imposed by the fact that chemical/electrical signaling down a pyramidal neuron is MUCH slower! Obviously there are no current algorithms designed to recognize and categorize inputs to SC2 games -- yes, it's complicated work. It's not impossible at all though, and to me it's so exciting.
That is true I suppose... but it still doesn't eliminate APM. The physical limitations are not what separate good players from bad players, or even the best player in the world from the worst player in the world. Physical limitations in terms of the musculature and the time it takes a signal to get from the brain to the finger (on the order of 100s of milliseconds) has absolutely zero effect on how starcraft works. I don't see how that imposes any kind of a skill ceiling. You're just removing a delay in the performance of the command by putting in a theoretically faster interface.
If a player were capable of issuing commands with his brain faster than his hands could move (and I think it's pretty clear that max human finger-spam capability is WAY higher than what players are using in Starcraft 1 or 2), then maybe having a supersweet BCI would make a difference. But have you ever heard a player say "Man, I really couldn't move my fingers fast enough that game. I wish I could undergo radical brain surgery to have a massive array of electrodes implanted in my cortex!"
|
I read the article, on page 3 of this thread you can find it.
It was long, but pretty good. When the site comes back up I'll recommend it to family and friends
|
Very cool article. Reminds me of the National Geographic documentary that followed Xellos.
|
On December 02 2011 14:03 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:31 fush wrote:On December 02 2011 13:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:On December 02 2011 10:08 talismania wrote:On December 02 2011 10:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Very interesting read, thank you for the heads up about the article. The fact that you are a researcher who likes SC2 tempts me to ask you something, so I'd love to see you thoughts
I'm wondering, what do you think about the idea of removing the motor requirement for SC2? In other words, what do you think about direct control over SC2 units via neuromotor prostheses (NMP)? The reason I'm asking is because one of the important things the article highlights is the motor aspect of SC2's difficulty. It's not like chess, where motor skills aren't really that relevant. Sure, you need basic motor connectivity to play chess, but I would argue that you don't need the refined, pruned, and much more specified corticospinal motor neuronal plasticity that you do need at high level SC2.
So, on to my rationale: It has been demonstrated in mouse, macaque, and human that neuronal ensembles (activation patterns of many neurons firing in concert to some end) unique to specific, intentional motor commands exist at the primary cortex (M1) even when corresponding limbs are no longer present or innervated. Recently, researchers have developed novel strategies combining brain-computer interface technology with algorithms to recognize and record unique, intentional neuronal ensembles at M1 corresponding to unique, intentional movements. Test patients have had electrodes implanted at M1 capable of recording and analyzing cortical motor activity. Using advances in brain-machine interface, NMPs have been developed whereby patients fitted with M1 electrodes can transfer intentional thoughts directly to a machine in order to achieve movement. For example, a patient can move a cursor around a screen based on neuronal firing patterns at the patient's M1 cortical region. First researchers determine which patterns correspond to which commands. Researchers then input these instructions, and then the NMP can match neuronal patterns to "learned" commands, thereby enabling direct neuronal control over machine-assisted movement. Therefore, it would be reasonable to apply this concept of NMP-assisted control of movement to SC2. Specifically, it would be reasonable to develop an NMP that can record neuronal patterns unique to commands in SC2, such as "stutter step marines", or "move units X distance". In theory, any number of complex commands could be matched by statistical analysis to a unique neuronal firing pattern. These patterns could be read by the NMP directly off the player's brain, enabling the player to issue commands to SC2 unfettered by motor-requirements.
So do you think it would be interesting to study SC2 if APM was no issue? It might be a novel way to examine players executing strategy at the highest possible level where literally, there are no mechanical barriers. So long as the player knows what must be done, the player can think, and the task will be executed (provided the NMP is made very well) What makes you think APM is no longer an issue? BCIs are usually placed on the motor cortex, and are thought to primarily decode the urge to execute a command. Therefore a command still has to be executed. APM is not dependent on finger speed - everyone can move their fingers fast enough. APM depends on the brain telling the fingers when to move, and adding a BCI does not change that. Furthermore I've yet to see a BCI that has good enough spatial acuity for resolving individual finger movements at the speeds required. Maybe in the future. Oh but an NMP does change that! Re: BrainGate Consider the simple fact that signals conduct much slower down cortical projection neurons than they do via electrical/machine circuitry. APM would be near instantaneous. It would coincide with thought, thus the physical limit imposed by mashing keys would be gone. Obviously there are no current algorithms designed to recognize and categorize inputs to SC2 games -- yes, it's complicated work. It's not impossible at all though, and to me it's so exciting. it'd be cool, but i can't see the logic behind your suggestion. yes - it removes the latency between the motor signal and the actual button press by the fingers, but this is the pathway that everyone has to go through and isn't the issue that you're trying to get at (which, if i'm understanding correctly, is the cognitive aspect of the game). what talismania is saying is that there simply no mechanical limitation to finger speed in SC2, which i think is true. anyone can focus solely on tapping their fingers and it's likely far faster than they can play. i think it's more likely that the roadblock is higher up, somewhere between visual processing and executive control. removing the latency between the final decision to move the finger and the finger press itself will likely not provide a different result. I think a significant reduction in latency could be achieved via NMP based on ensemble studies in humans. I think it would affect SC2 playing ability. In other words, I think a player with a perfected NMP could achieve better results due to the fact that he would issue more commands per minute. If you retrain the way in which you issue commands, you achieve a faster rate of issuing commands based on overcoming the need to input signals to the periphery. Rather, you input directly to a computer interface, thus there is a significant reduction in latency. It might not seem like this would be significant, but in fact it could allow a player to totally re-learn how to play SC2, faster. What if a concerted thought, along with its recognized, temporally-dynamic ensemble, achieves several actions normally requiring several motor actions? You can't argue that several motor functions vs. no motor functions is not significant. Depending on how advanced the software or analysis techniques become, you could have a lot of different things being performed simultaneously. Microing separate groups of units, near-synchronously? The fact is that you could achieve this type of near synchronous control of two groups on a screen much more perfectly with no motor requirement. You are right that you can tap your fingers furiously faster than you can issue commands or play... But issuing SC2 commands is not as simple as tapping fingers together as fast as possible. Complex, coordinated movements are required between eye, fingers, and mouse-arm. It would be significant to eliminate all those movements.
my point originally was not NMP-trained vs. normal SC2 playing. rather, assuming there are significant differences between two groups of players with differing skills, the difference between these two groups under the normal conditions won't differ significantly from the difference between these two groups after they've been NMP trained. basically, i'm having difficulty seeing how removing a single component that has little to do with the actual information processing can affect the outcome when the argument is that the roadblock to perfect play is a mental rather than mechanical one.
there's absolutely no doubt that should the technology be perfected and optimized for sc2, that performance will improve as you said. near-simultaneous actions are possible whereas they aren't when you have to queue commands normally. my point is that the point of difference probably lies upstream of when the command to move is given, and if you take out this component entirely, barring any motor deficiencies one might have, the respective changes to performance in each skill group may not be that much different from other groups pre- and post- NMP training.
|
the site wont work, could OP spoiler the contents or something?
|
link doesn't work for me 
|
As emc and amberlight pointed out, the bottom of page 3 has a spoilered screenshot of the article.
|
So strange to read about SC2 from an outsider's perspective.
It actually makes me feel a little better about myself, because it never seems so complicated in game.
|
On December 02 2011 11:26 TastyMuffins wrote:Show nested quote +Each player begins with a small base of one of three species—terran (humans), zerg (insectoid creatures), or protoss (photosynthetic aliens). lol protoss are photosynthetic aliens
They are.. They dont have mouths dude, they dont eat, they absorb light and feed that way, aka photosynthetic
|
On December 02 2011 16:04 ELA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 11:26 TastyMuffins wrote:Each player begins with a small base of one of three species—terran (humans), zerg (insectoid creatures), or protoss (photosynthetic aliens). lol protoss are photosynthetic aliens They are.. They dont have mouths dude, they dont eat, they absorb light and feed that way, aka photosynthetic
don't they absorb water from their skin?
|
The link isnt working for me =(
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ejhmC.jpg)
