BCI如何工作？ (How do BCIs work?)

The concept of combining mind and machine isn’t new; in fact, it can be traced back to the 1970s when research on BCIs started at the University of California, which led to the emergence of the term ‘brain-computer interface’. BCIs are today invasive; that is, they are surgically implanted in people with medical conditions like paralysis for example, to help them restore basic movement.

头脑和机器相结合的概念并不是什么新鲜事物。 实际上，它可以追溯到1970年代，当时加州大学开始对BCI进行研究，这导致了“脑机接口”一词的出现。 如今，BCI具有侵入性。 也就是说，将它们通过外科手术植入患有麻痹之类疾病的人中，以帮助他们恢复基本运动。

But what if there are ways of getting that same detailed data through non-invasive BCIs? That’s where technology is heading today. David Piech, a BCI researcher at UC Berkeley, gives a very thorough analogy of the difference in data generated by invasive BCIs and non-invasive BCIs:

但是，如果有通过非侵入性BCI获得相同详细数据的方法呢？ 这就是今天的技术发展方向。 加州大学伯克利分校的BCI研究人员David Piech十分彻底地类比了侵入性BCI和非侵入性BCI生成的数据的差异：

“With non-invasive approaches… one analogy is that you’re watching football. But instead of watching inside — you are outside the stadium; you can actually get a… glimpse at what’s going on in the game, every once in a while you hear the crowd but you only know the biggest events. What’s much more interesting, to me, is if, instead of standing on the outside of the stadium you actually maybe go to the top of one section of the stands and now you no longer get the most gross information from the game. You now may see how this particular section is cheering. Now, if you go even closer- imagine sitting next to someone, and now you can have an actual conversation with them, and now know exactly what their reaction is to every play.” [Source]

“使用非侵入性方法……比喻是您在看足球。 但是，您不必在里面观看，而是在体育场外面； 实际上，您可以……不时地瞥见游戏中发生的事情，听到人群的声音，但您只知道最大的事件。 对我而言，更有趣的是，实际上您可能不是去看体育场的外面，而是去看台的某一部分的顶部，而现在您不再从游戏中获得最详尽的信息。 现在，您可能会看到此特定部分的欢呼声。 现在，如果您走得更近-想象坐在某人旁边，现在您可以与他们进行实际对话，现在确切知道他们对每场比赛的React。” [ 来源 ]

A host of startups are popping up in hopes of bringing intelligent non-invasive BCIs to the masses (e.g. NextMind, BrainCo, PlatoScience, CTRL-Labs, Thync, etc). The aim of BCIs is to replace our need for keyboards, mouses, touchscreens, joysticks, steering wheels, and more. In other words, physical user interfaces that designers have designed and perfected for decades.

涌现出许多新兴公司，希望将智能无创BCI 引入大众(例如NextMind ， BrainCo ， PlatoScience ， CTRL-Labs ， Thync等)。 BCI的目的是取代我们对键盘，鼠标，触摸屏，操纵杆，方向盘等的需求。 换句话说，设计人员已经设计和完善了数十年的物理用户界面。

BCIs work because of the way our brains work; our brains are filled with individual nerve cells called neurons that are all connected to each other. Whenever we think, move, feel — our neurons are working, and their work is facilitated by small electric signals that travel from neuron to neuron. Overall, researchers can detect these electrical signals and interpret what they mean, and use them to control a system. BCIs can’t read your thoughts precisely enough to know what your thoughts are at any given moment. Currently, they’re more about picking up emotional states or which movements you intend to make. A BCI could pick up when someone is thinking ‘yes’ or ‘no’ — sort of in the same way a binary computer works today.

BCI的运作是因为我们的大脑运作方式； 我们的大脑充满了称为神经元的个体神经细胞，它们相互连接。 每当我们思考，移动，感觉时，我们的神经元都在工作，而从神经元传到神经元的小电信号会促进他们的工作。 总体而言，研究人员可以检测到这些电信号并解释其含义，然后使用它们来控制系统。 BCI无法准确地阅读您的想法，以至于无法随时了解您的想法。 目前，他们更多地是要了解情绪状态或您打算做出的动作。 当有人在想“是”或“不是”时，BCI可能会增加-类似于当今二进制计算机的工作方式。

我们今天如何与系统互动 (How we interact with systems today)

When a user intends on interacting with a system, they undergo several steps. And these steps can be segmented into two different ‘gulfs’; the gulf of execution are the steps between the user’s intentions and actions to be done in order to execute them, and the gulf of evaluation are steps between the user’s perception (or discovery) of a system’s state, and the actual system state. The seven steps are:

当用户打算与系统交互时，他们会经历几个步骤。 这些步骤可以分为两个不同的“鸿沟”。 执行的鸿沟是用户意图和要执行的动作之间的步骤，而评估的鸿沟是用户对系统状态的感知(或发现)与实际系统状态之间的步骤。 七个步骤是：

In mature brain-computer interfaces that we will have in the future, the gulf of execution is much shorter; arguably, all users need to do is form a goal and they will instantly get a perception of the system’s state. I think that the implication of this is that UI design will become redundant because artifacts that make up UI design (e.g. buttons, icons etc) all exist in the gulf of execution, as they are used to execute commands. Without those steps in an interaction, those artifacts will no longer be necessary.

在我们将来将拥有的成熟的人机界面中，执行的鸿沟要短得多； 可以说，所有用户要做的只是形成一个目标，他们将立即获得对系统状态的感知。 我认为这暗示着UI设计将变得多余，因为构成UI设计的工件(例如按钮，图标等)在用于执行命令时都存在于执行的鸿沟中。 如果没有交互中的这些步骤，则不再需要这些工件。

BCI对设计师的影响 (The impact that BCIs will have on designers)

So what do UX/UI designers need to think about to design for BCIs? In my opinion, there are three significant factors that come into play:

那么，UX / UI设计人员在设计BCI时需要考虑什么？ 我认为，有三个重要因素在起作用：

比现有的以人为本的方法更深入 (Diving deeper than the existing human-centered approach)

First of all, designers still need to adopt a human-design thinking approach if they want to maintain a human-centered approach to their designs; the human brain is… ultimately human (duh!). If anything, empathizing with users becomes the bare minimum because designers are required to understand user needs and emotions on a neurobiological level. Frustrations won’t arise because a button doesn’t work, but because a system might process a desired goal differently from what the user “thought”. This requires a deeper level of altruism than empathy, which is why I propose a “compassionate design” approach — it aims to move designers from “systems thinking” (more objectively understand how a system is functioning) to “systems sensing” (to “walk in someone else’s shoes”), and to cultivate compassion. And compassion is all about dealing with human paradoxes with care and without judgement.

首先，如果设计师想要保持以人为本的设计方法，仍然需要采用人为设计的思维方法。 人类的大脑是……最终是人类(du！)。 如果有的话，对用户的同情成为最低限度的要求，因为设计师 需要了解 用户需求和情感 从神经生物学的角度 。 不会因为按钮不起作用而感到沮丧，而是因为系统可能会以与用户“想法”不同的方式处理期望的目标。 这需要比同理心更深层次的利他主义，这就是为什么我提出“富有同情心的设计”方法的原因-它旨在使设计师从“系统思考”(更客观地了解系统的功能)转移到“系统感知”(到“穿上别人的鞋子”)，并培养同情心。 同情心是关于谨慎对待人类悖论而无需作出判断。

How can compassionate design be facilitated? It requires a deeper understanding, and that can only happen by introducing more disciplines to contribute and create a fuller picture. Companies need to not only hire traditional designers in their design teams, but all types of people who understand people. That includes anthropologists, sociologists, neuroscientists, technologists, etc. As humans and technology become more interconnected, our approaches to understanding humans and how they interact with emerging technologies needs to be more interdisciplinary too.

如何进行富有同情心的设计？ 它需要更深入的理解，而这只有通过引入更多学科来做出贡献并创造出更完整的图景才能实现。 公司不仅需要在设计团队中聘用传统设计师，还需要聘用所有了解人的人。 其中包括人类学家，社会学家，神经科学家，技术专家等。随着人类与技术之间的联系日益紧密，我们对人类的理解以及人类与新兴技术的相互作用方式也需要更加跨学科。

新技术=新设计挑战 (New technology = new design challenges)

New design challenges will arise with BCIs. One of these hurdles is the lack of intermediate UI input tools (such as hands, voice, screens) to facilitate a command. These are artifacts that designers have designed for decades. What are designers actually supposed to design?

BCI将带来新的设计挑战。 这些障碍之一是缺少用于辅助命令的中间UI输入工具(例如手，语音，屏幕)。 这些是设计师数十年来设计的工件。 设计师实际上应该设计什么？

Another BCI design hurdle that designers need to consider is the ease of learning and use of BCIs (which includes factors such as learnability, familiarity, usability and responsiveness). BCIs are completely foreign to the large majority of system users today. Designers need to design BCI experiences that reflect the real world; that are contextual; and that are easy to remember so that users are able to control the world around them through real world commands. What designers should start prioritizing in my opinion is designing guiding systems on how to use BCIs, to ease the transition from HCIs to BCIs.

设计师需要考虑的另一项BCI设计障碍是学习和使用BCI的简易性(其中包括诸如可学习性，熟悉性，可用性和响应性等因素)。 BCI对于当今的大多数系统用户来说是完全陌生的。 设计师需要设计能够反映现实世界的BCI体验； 是上下文的； 而且这些操作很容易记住，因此用户可以通过现实世界的命令来控制周围的世界。 我认为设计师应该开始优先考虑的是设计有关如何使用BCI的指导系统，以简化从HCI到BCI的过渡。

BCI的伦理意义 (Ethical implications of BCI’s)

Finally, and the most significant design challenge in my opinion, is the ethical considerations of BCI design. BCIs are ultimately capable of reading and writing directly to our minds. And this has several ethical implications. What if a BCI gets hacked and alters the thoughts of a user? What if a BCI is able to implant thoughts into a user’s mind? And what would happen if a system reacts autonomously to a user’s subconscious thoughts and processes these subconscious thoughts to execute an undesirable (or desirable, but not consensual) command? These are harmful but plausible outcomes of BCIs, and designers should be aware of designing BCI experiences that avoid (or if they happen, mitigate) these scenarios.

最后，我认为最重要的设计挑战是BCI设计的道德考量。 BCI最终有能力直接在我们的脑海中读写。 这具有几个伦理意义。 如果BCI被黑并改变了用户的想法怎么办？ 如果BCI能够将思想植入用户的脑海中怎么办？ 如果系统对用户的潜意识进行自主React并处理这些潜意识以执行不良(或理想但非自愿)的命令，将会发生什么？ 这些是BCI的有害但合理的结果，设计人员应意识到设计BCI体验时应避免(或如果发生，应减轻)这些情况。

Evidently, a mindset shift needs to occur in order to prepare designers for BCIs. Having an interdisciplinary, compassionate design approach that is forgiving (as people transition into BCIs) and ethical to users. What tools will BCI designers need to have? I don’t know — but that’s not the point. Whilst non-invasive BCIs are still at their infancy, I think the biggest takeaway of this article as a designer is the importance of evangelizing a humanistic approach to design, and prioritizing usability and user’s needs. With that said, I speculate that the role of a UI designer for example will carry far much less importance; as we let users carry out commands based on a molecular, animalistic and instinctive need, the shade of red of a button suddenly carries less importance.

显然，需要发生观念转变，以便为BCI设计人员做好准备。 具有跨学科的，富有同情心的设计方法，这种方法是宽容的(随着人们过渡到BCI)，并且对用户而言是合乎道德的。 BCI设计师需要什么工具？ 我不知道-但这不是重点。 尽管非侵入式BCI仍处于起步阶段，但我认为作为设计师，本文的最大收获是，宣传人性化的设计方法以及优先考虑可用性和用户需求非常重要。 话虽如此，我推测例如UI设计师的角色重要性将大大降低。 当我们让用户根据分子，动物和本能的需要执行命令时，按钮的红色阴影突然变得不那么重要了。