Last I interacted with one of these systems it seemed more like confimation bias from noise.
Had a buddy who bought a "high end" headset, shaved his head to "improve the signal", and it appeared for all intents and purposes that it was mostly only reading concusive activity. He would "show me it's working" by tapping on the exterior of the sensors to get it to display a spike.
Conceptually these systems "make sense" to me, ie. the brain uses electromagnetism to function so one should be able to sense/manipulate those vectors, but an FMRI is MASSIVE and requires a 1-3 Tesla electromagnet to get its fidelity, and even then is only measuring blood flow and correlating that to brain activity.
So what's the hope that a tiny sensor resting on your skin will actually correspond to anything happening inside the brain?
> They have nothing whatsoever to do with each otyer, in terms of why they work.
I thought my comment made my knowledge of this explicit? Also I was referring to FMRI.
>> and even then is only measuring blood flow and correlating that to brain activity.
My question is about resolution. FMRIs are our best tools in terms of brain activity when concerned about resolution.
A stethoscope can indirectly tell you if you have fluid in your lungs, but "where" or "why" are far beyond the scope of a stethoscope.
A direct comparison would be:
One seems useful; the other, self-evident.
So, EEG, is it /still/ confirmation bias in its ability to read/interpret signals in the brain?
Or has there been an appreciable development in EEG's abilities/resolution/functionality?