Wikipedia:Peer review/Brain-computer interface/archive1

Brain-computer interface edit

Hi, this article just passed a GA and I'm hoping to eventually try for FA, but having worked on it for a while, I'm starting to get blind about the overall impact it makes. I'd really appreciate your comments on whether it grabs your attention, is consistent and keeps you reading. Grateful for your opinion on whether the summary style works and whether all the style manual components are correct. Cheers--Saganaki- 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty decent and I enjoyed the subject matter. Here's a few comments:

Some FAC reviewers seem to like an article to be relatively self-contained. But when this article uses terms like "motor cortex neurons" and "phosphenes" without clarification, it requires the reader to fork from the main article for clarification. The second paragraph of the "Prominent research successes" section, for example, does a good job of explaining the terms without need for a drill-down.
Errors: "defintion", "targetted"
Some additional terms could be usefully linked: integrated circuit, retinal implants, visual cortex, macaque monkey, algorithms, mathematical filters, neurophysiology, zucchini, congenital, stroke, laser, peripheral nerves, dura mater, scar-tissue, epileptics, and quadriplegic.
In the sentence, "from an integrated circuit to a silicon chip," aren't these currently redundant terms? I'm not sure that there is a digital computer that doesn't rely on an IC circuit on a silicon chip.
"very existence of BCIs suggests that consciousness and mind can be reduced to the physical qualities of the brain, posing great questions for modern philosophers of the mind." This is perhaps debatable, but from a purely logical point of view I'm not sure I agree with this sentence. The existence of an interface to the brain does not require that the consciousness be a purely physical quality. The brain already provides the requisite interface between the physical sense and the mental consciousness. Beyond that, however, does this really raise any new philisophical issues beyond those that are already up for discussion regarding the physical nature of the consciousness? This topic is also not covered by the remainder of the text.
The terms "explosive" and "amazing", where they occur in the text, are too non-neutral for an encyclopedia article.
First section, first paragraph--please use an em dash rather than a dash. HTML code: —
The term "optic-nerve cuffs" is used but not defined.
This statement is ambiguous: "He also found that dispersed groups of neurons in different areas of the brain collectively controlled motor commands but due to technical limitations was only able to record the firings of neurons in one area at a time." Was this a problem in the lab or a limitation of the monkey brain? Undoubtedly the former, but it should be clear.
I had some difficulty understanding the sentence, "real-time reconstruction of complex motor parameters using recordings from neural ensembles". Perhaps it could be clarified for the average, non-specialist?
Comma needed in "...hand manipulation skills, making them ideal..."

I hope these were somewhat helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's an excellent critique. Get working on improvements right away.--Saganaki- 00:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. Something else came to mind:

Have there been any ethical discussions or criticisms of this technology? If so, a "Criticisms" section could be an interesting addition. This could also cover potential military applications and clarify concerns about mind-control or other potential abuses, &c. — RJH (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. — RJH (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about that and it sounds like a good idea. The way I'd approach it is to write a summary and then link through to ethical talk in Brain implant and mind control. Here's why. Currently, there are relatively few criticims of BCIs because:

the research is focused on fighting disability
there has been no special attention from animal rights groups
BCIs have are being used to acquire signals to control devices rather than the other way round. The exception to this is vision research.

This could change in the future, for example today's brain pacemakers which aren't considered BCIs could become a lot more sophisticated. Neurochips could also develop further, for example the artificial hippocampus. I would say that the ethical considerations related to BCIs will be very similar or the same to those as for Brain implant and mind control where a debate has already begun. So because the BCI article is already v. long and to avoid duplication I'd suggest creating a preamble then linking to these pages for the full story. Think that works?--Saganaki- 00:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that sounds good, assuming that there are suitable references. — RJH (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the ethical considerations section - intend to source it better if I get time. There are also a couple of loose ends to tie up (for example the one sentence claim about Philip Kennedy being the first to develop a wireless BCI). I wonder, after that, whether its ready for a FA review, but my gut feeling is its probably worth encouraging more peer review here first? --Saganaki- 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]