BRINGING BRAIN POWER TO THE STREETS
Nissan’s plan should keep us behind the wheel longer, writes David Booth.
How complicated are our brains? Some would say not very — cue references to the Fire and Fury currently captivating American politics regarding a certain politician’s mental fitness — but the truth is that, according to neuroscientists, the average cranium contains literally billions of neurons. So many, in fact, that we — or at least some of us — have a neuron completely devoted to Jennifer Aniston.
The Jennifer Aniston Neuron — and, yes, that is an accepted term in the scientific community — quite literally only turns on when someone sees Brad Pitt’s first wife. Not just a celebrity. Not someone who looks a little like “our Jen.” Not even — as UCLA neurosurgeon Itzhak Fried, who conducted the experiment, discovered through testing — Julia Roberts. No, just Jennifer Aniston, and Jennifer Aniston only. That’s how precise the 85 billion neurons that control our every thought are.
What’s that got to do with driving, I’m sure you’re all asking?
Well, as it turns out, scientists — Nissan researchers associated with the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne — are trying to harness those all-powerful neurons to make us better drivers. Nissan calls it Brain-to-Vehicle (B2V) technology. Neuroscientists officially label it Brain-Computer Interfacing (BCI). But, whatever the acronym, connecting our neurons to the steering wheel could make us better drivers, safer drivers and, more importantly to those of us who actually like driving, may allow us humans to remain behind the wheel of our automobiles a little longer.
That’s because while fully autonomous driving threatens to prohibit us from driving — essentially, as Bob Lutz details, since machines are predicted to reduce auto fatalities so dramatically, governments may limit our right to drive our own vehicles — B2V could enhance our driving skills enough that we can compete with computerized cars.
What Nissan’s system does is monitor and interpret the brain activity associated with driving and then, on command from specific thought patterns — and one presumes that if we’re able to recognize Ms. Aniston’s face among the millions that we encounter, “Stop now!” should be easily deciphered — communicates them directly to the car. It can command it to stop, swerve or take a host of other measures.
Essentially, what Nissan is saying is that while our eyes make excellent sensors — better, in fact, than the various radar, LIDAR and cameras now being used in autonomous cars — and our brains are able to process that information with adequate accuracy and speed, it is our brain-to-brake-pedal or brain-to-steering-wheel interface that slows down our evasive action. By connecting neuron information directly to the car, Nissan claims its B2V system can reduce our reaction times by as much as 0.2 to 0.5 seconds. For a little perspective, at 100 kilometres an hour that’s about 14 metres (45 feet) of extra braking room, the difference between denting a bumper and all airbags on deck.
Here’s how it works: A bunch of sensors in a wonky-looking hat uses electroencephalography (EEG) technology to determine what actions the driver is about to take. But, instead of waiting for him or her to take action, those directives are sent directly to the car’s computer. In fact, B2V uses the same hardware as autonomous cars to brake, steer or accelerate, but instead of a computer controlling them, it’s your brain.
According to The Economist, scientists have fully mapped fewer than a thousand of those 85 billion neurons I mentioned earlier. And the speed of the development isn’t encouraging. The Economist notes that the mapping of human neurons is not keeping pace with, for instance, the discovery of everfaster computers.
More pressing will be that
B2V will not eliminate as many accidents as fully autonomous vehicles can. For one thing, it still relies on the more-than-slightly fallible human brain as its processor. For another, our brains are not interconnected, whereas the computers that control the fully autonomous cars of the future will be. Self-driving cars will be aware of cars they can’t even see. Humans, even with the benefit of BCV technology, won’t. Although it’s reasonable to predict that Brain-to-Vehicle systems could dramatically reduce fatalities, they won’t completely eliminate automotive accidents as developers of autonomous vehicles promise.
Therein lies the quandary. Safety — and not just automotive — has become the issue of our times and often, just like the polemics of our politics, only the most extreme of viewpoints seem to be heard. The big question for Nissan, then, may be whether a reduction of, say — and I am just tossing this out there as my estimation — half of all automotive fatalities thanks to brain-to-vehicle technology is sufficiently placating to allow us the freedom to remain behind the wheels of our cars. Or, as so many advocates seem to be espousing, is the total elimination of all automotive fatalities the only acceptable outcome, even if it means we would no longer be allowed to drive?
This is most definitely the (automotive) question of our times. Previous generations commonly weighed the balance between individual rights and the common good. For example, when the United States raised its speed limits to 65 miles per hour in 1987, even the move’s proponents acknowledged it might cause a rise in automotive fatalities. Now we have websites for groups like mothers against minibikes that want to prevent parents from allowing children to ride motorized two-wheelers.