There's an inherent flaw: the translations are based on our observations. So the device, at best, creates accurate translations of what we'd believe the dog is intending to say. This is a major communication barrier.

But it's certainly fun. Maybe more? Certainly it could be a step on the way to more.


Edit: thinking about it a bit more, the problem is that it isn't two-way communication. I wonder if it will ever evolve to allow anything like a conversation. One very odd thing is that it's reading the dogs thoughts, not "speech".

Also, does it intend to stop barking? If so, how? I mean, will dogs magically stop barking because they understand that they're making human noises? Seems odd. I guess that idea is that it clarifies why they are barking so you can solve the problem faster. ...assuming it's accurate and that you want to solve the problem at that moment. Do many dog owners really have a problem understanding, for example, that the dog wants attention? I'd imagine not.

I wonder what Con Slobodchikoff (the prairie dog guy) would have to say about something like this.

^Really?  Why wouldn't it work?

If the eeg device is picking up on repeated patterns, and it could for certain emotions or thought processes, it could surely alert us with a vocal recording when the pattern is made.

It's the same logic used in a prosthetic limb which is informed by brain signals for how to move.

I agree with JKPATE.

If the eeg device is picking up on repeated patterns, and it could for certain emotions or thought processes, it could surely alert us with a vocal recording when the pattern is made.

Look, the device picks up repetitions which are a subset of the activity going on in a tremendously complex action -- but let's even forget about the meaning of EEG devices (which are in no way are capable of telling about what goes on in someone's thoughts, much less the thoughts of a dog) -- from the perspective of pure logic only, there is no way for us to assign meaning to those patterns. Period.

This is marketing, plain and simple. It's a joke (and it's supposed to be!)

There's also a question of precision: it may only assume something like 10 contrastive "thoughts" for dogs, in which case this is less crazy though still likely has some problems.
Jkpate, I agree, but maybe ear movements are enough in this case for a few basic "thoughts".

But this isn't the only machine working on a brain-computer interface, like I said there are prosthetic limbs that run on the same idea, and through eeg as well.  I don't seem to understand why it's unfeasable?

Neither do I.

I mean, you can fly a toy helicopter based on brain waves with a set of pretty ordinary-looking headphones, land it and everything. I know the science behind that is based on attention and meditation levels, but if you can get that and fly a toy helicopter with it for around £100, I don't see the big leap to why this sort of invention is still considered something way off in the depths of scientific future. Okay, it wouldn't be able to have any deep meaning and it might be based on quite crude assumptions, but maybe the brain structure of animals without higher cognitive processes is easier to discern, with fewer natural states and less messy intereferences (nb: I said 'maybe'). Okay, hunger is a process deep within the brain that probably isn't able to be detected by anything on the commercial market, but while I'm not advocating that this works (only read about it for the first time when Cory posted the link), I'm not left with a sense of disbelief (nb: I haven't read the claims of what it says it can say) but the general idea of basic-level attentional states is already on the market to fly toys for humans. I think if you've selected reliably-specific surface brain activity in animals, then at least for those feelings, I am not left with a strong taste of disbelief in my mouth at the idea of this being available (not specifically talking about this product itself).

The issue, I think, is that flying a toy helicopter is NOT language. That's what is misleading about this whole thing.

But when was this about language? Isn't this about processing the feelings of dogs and then alerting their owners via language as to what they're feeling? I mean, it could be: - one bleep for happy - two bleeps for sad. Language is not the central issue to this discussion, unless I've really misinterpreted what we're talking about here (and if so: woops, my bad  ).

I don't know, even if the idea in general is feasible, this group does not strike me as pursuing it in a serious way.

Also, the one sensor version is being advertised for $65, and the two sensor version is being advertised for $300. They don't say how many sensors the $1200 version will have, but the pictures don't have more than six sensors. (and two of the sensors are down around the dog's jaw!?)