thanks very much for your very worthwhile comments which must be discussed carefully when we shape BioMedCEP for NBIS. Some remarks to your points what is very helpful for writing already a good abstract or an one-pager for the pre-check:Björn Menze/ETHZ wrote 7 Dec 2011:
(...) I understood you correctly that BrainPort and related Neuro-Rehabilitation/-Prosthetic Projects would be the driving technology you have in mind here? And remaining work packages would be centered around it? ...
... one should have a very good reason as of _why_ one wanted to leave the subject/organ level of standard BCI (and related technology) and go down through all the scales down to protein (?) level. As you know, every scale comes with different models even for the same disease. And if one chooses to go through multiple scales, it should be - on a very technical, experimental level - clear of how to inform the related models through data (...)Some possible answers:
BrainPort and CN-NINM technology of the TCNL approach is used to show the State of the Art and that the Brain could be "rebooted" by stimulating and training it on the organ-level with events (patterns)
, a non-invasive approach, without any drugs, very effective and efficient, healing results after a very short time of treatment, as it seems. This can be explained by the TCNL colleagues Yuri Danilov, Mitch Tyler and Kurt Kaczmarek in more details (see viewtopic.php?f=13&t=261&start=10#p1215
, and the following postings).
This existing approach should now be enhanced by U-CEP
and exploited in other use cases
like understanding Ageing, Inner Clock of the brain, etc. and diseases like depression, diabetes and obesity as some of the main diseases of our society.
The connection between U-CEP and the U Wisconsin/TCNL or the Deep Brain Stimulation approaches is that we would be able to experiment with complex event patterns
for stimulating the brain
or the tongue very much better
or more target-oriented, more fine-grained
even on the basis of an EPL logic
and of arbitrary event sources
- from other senses, from the environment or from the global event cloud of the Internet of Things and Services. The event modelling can take place "on the fly" during the experiment
or the treatment of the patient. Additionally, in the future such a device with the accelerometers will be miniaturized so much, that the "device" could be worn permanently or could be implanted e.g. in the tongue. Body Area Networks and Wearable Technologies viewtopic.php?f=13&t=299 would be a kind of an infrastructure for combining all the needed technological components of biosensing via event adapters on the organ- or the cell-level depending on the targets, the exocortex system based on IBM's cognitive computing chips or quantum- and bio-computing (e.g. see BrainScaleS or the comparison of artificial brain and neuroscience projects http://synapticlink.org/BrainProjectCom ... htm?mid=54
), mapping technologies of the event-processing results of the exocortex to the brain and the human body.
We could experiment on both levels: on the organ-level as sketched in paper 1, and on the cell- and protein-machinery level. We use event adapters for living cells engineered to shuttle electrons across a cell’s membrane
to an external acceptor along a well-defined path viewtopic.php?f=13&t=268
or the proton-based
chips viewtopic.php?f=13&t=261&start=20#p1230 or IBM's cognitive computing chips viewtopic.php?f=13&t=261&start=20#p1230
or Princeton university's electronic skin viewtopic.php?f=13&t=261&start=10#p1217
. Some of the questions are - what we have addressed viewtopic.php?f=13&t=261&start=10#p1222
With our combined approach we distinguish between:
1) use another organ (or a robot) to substitute a (damaged) sense and what makes it with the brain or how is the brain recovered/reorganized/changed
2) enhance the sensitivity range of a sense and what would the brain do? adapt as well? or would we become crazy respectively could not (re-) act sensefully with an enhanced sensitivity range? Then would we need an exocortex to translate or map this additional "information" to our brain?
3) add new or additional senses, ditto, and would we recognize a new "reality"?
For instance, it is imaginable that we can enhance the sensitivity range of the sense of smell via an exocortex system according to today's specially trained dogs which can smell cancer cells in a human body in a very early stage, and we can trigger biological processes to influence the metabolism on the protein level to destroy or repair such cancer cells, or we can trigger nanobot-based processes which destroy or repair the cells.
We want to investigate reasons why and when to leave the subject/organ level of standard BCI
(and related technology) and go down through all the scales down to protein level. Every scale comes with different models even for the same disease. To go through multiple scales, it will be - on a very technical, experimental level - investigated how to inform the related models through data respectively events.
We experiment with that on the mentioned basis of U-CEP and genetic cassettes or other (e.g. protonic or graphene-based) event adapters and influence a protein machinery based on changing complex event patterns and event processing at all. We try to heal some more diseases than the use cases addressed in the BioMedCEP proposal (e.g. schizophrenia, addiction, parkinson, etc.) - also non-invasively and without drugs - and the brain should stably or durably change after short time, as TCNL has proved this for their experiments and "use cases" (as we call it in the discipline of Software Engineering) already.
A human body can be seen as a collaboration of around 50 or more trillion cells (as an event processing network EPN
) which do event processing and collaborating via the receptors
of the cell membrane (event adapters
) and the related effectors
(event processing agents EPA
) which “manage” or control the processes of a protein machinery. To model and control the event processing of specific biomarkers can be the basis to avoid and heal diseases.
Especially interesting are the dynamic aspects
of a not strongly fixed and in advance defined collaboration of processes. The processes can be combined dynamically as it is perhaps also typical in the fields of biology and medicine. This also includes the aspects of Uncertainty modeling
(as also mentioned in Ch. 5 of the VPH-FET roadmap). We experiment with modeling approaches from UAI (Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, http://www.auai.org/
, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf
, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf
) as well as the suggestion of a reference model for non-deterministic U-CEP applications (see workshop paper Danilov/Tyler/Ammon/Etzion) and special aspects of uncertainty in the disciplin of CEP (Etzion/Niblett 2010).
The vision of the BioMedCEP project is to bring together a team of brain researchers, biologists, from epigenetics
and from medicine
regarding the understanding of the neurobiological processes
and the definition of biomarkers with specialists of process or event modelling
methodology to implement such neuro-bio-inspired systems for biosensing and biomarkers and with IT specialists of Ubiquitous Complex Event Processing
of accordant real-time processing platforms for a tremendous vast amount of events or signals per second as an interaction between a human and the surrounding universe.
That would be some ideas on the way to write an abstract or one-pager so far
. Must be better integrated of course, but could be a basis for our discussion on Monday.
I tried to change the workpackages structure according to the NBIS objectives, as you already got it with the invitation to the 3rd conference call 12 Dec 2011
(downloadable as ppt http://www.citt-online.com/downloads/WP ... MedCEP.ppt
, please feel free to change and send back)