Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


Q&A: What does the Facebook acquisition of CTRL-Labs mean for Neurotechnology and Augmented & Virtual Reality?


While sit­ting at din­ner with an unsus­pect­ing friend, my phone blew up with odd­ly-late mes­sages from fel­low neu­rotech­nol­o­gy com­rades. CTRL-Labs announced their impend­ing acqui­si­tion by Face­book and inte­gra­tion into Face­book Real­i­ty Labs (respon­si­ble for Ocu­lus et al.), for enough mon­ey to buy my guilt-induc­ing­ly-expen­sive New York cof­fee for a mea­ger 550,000 years. Woah—so very many ques­tions. I fig­ured I’d share (and con­sid­er this an open invi­ta­tion to reach out and throw in your 100 bil­lion cents-worth).

As a quick note before pro­ceed­ing, aside from its prag­mat­ic com­mu­ni­ca­tion impli­ca­tions, I don’t much mind whether or not CTRL-Labs and oth­er EMG tech­nolo­gies hold philo­soph­i­cal cre­dence as true neu­rotech­nolo­gies; what mat­ters is that they’re brand­ed as such. It’s a debate that’s been waged else­where, so I’ll leave it be!

Q: What does this mean for the neurotechnology field?

Consumer neurotech

  • Con­sumer neu­rotech­nol­o­gy has been prop­er­ly legit­imized: there will now be an entry in the tech­nol­o­gy ver­nac­u­lar for “that neu­ro com­pa­ny FB bought.” Neu­rotech will be a true cat­e­go­ry, and will prob­a­bly begin to appear on the web­sites of the more dar­ing ven­ture cap­i­tal firms. This is non-triv­ial: when Face­book pur­chased Ocu­lus in March of 2014, what fol­lowed was a huge influx of invest­ments into AR/VR (the suc­cess­es of which have admit­ted­ly been ques­tion­able at best). As many VCs are quick to note, VC is a social dance, and bil­lion-dol­lar sur­prise exits to a FAANG com­pa­ny is a pow­er­ful way to get that game start­ed.
  • I’ve spo­ken to sev­er­al entre­pre­neurs in con­sumer neu­rotech­nol­o­gy today and, as expect­ed, all of them are excit­ed. This is a win they can point to; a vision they can show might lead to a con­crete out­come. It is and will remain moti­vat­ing for entre­pre­neurs, their employ­ees, and their present and future investors.
  • Even though I don’t per­son­al­ly mind it, this acqui­si­tion is going to cause a has­sle in nomen­cla­ture. To actu­al­ly under­stand how CTRL-Labs dif­fers from a cen­tral ner­vous sys­tem-BCI requires a bit of basic anatomy/physiology knowl­edge. For peo­ple not in the know (i.e., almost every­body, includ­ing most VCs and engi­neers), this adds an addi­tion­al lay­er of complexity/misdirection to how peo­ple will think about neu­ro. Absent detailed infor­ma­tion, humans employ under­spec­i­fied mod­els of seman­tic domains; that’s what will prob­a­bly hap­pen in con­sumer neu­rotech­nol­o­gy. In the same way, due to my igno­rance of quan­tum com­put­ing, any piece of infor­ma­tion I learn about quan­tum com­put­ing will apply to the entire field of quan­tum com­put­ing, where­as in real­i­ty, it’s just anoth­er piece in a com­plex puz­zle. I sus­pect the same will hap­pen in neu­ro.
  • Con­trol (as opposed to affec­tive com­put­ing and the like) is going to be the flag­ship of neu­rotech­nol­o­gy, because that’s what CTRL-Labs does. It’s pos­si­ble that investors, jour­nal­ists, and tech­nol­o­gists will, on aver­age, fall prey to the same under­spec­i­fied mod­el trap and col­lapse all “use-cas­es” into con­trol. (If you want to get a sense for how I cre­ate a tax­on­o­my for con­sumer neu­rotech, you can skim this).

Medical neurotech

I’m will­ing to wager that more of the med­ical neu­rotech­nol­o­gy com­pa­nies I know and will get to know over the com­ing months are going to empha­size the con­sumer-crossover angle. “We’re a med­ical device com­pa­ny now, but we’ll have a patient-fac­ing app which would fit in nice­ly with the health data focus at [insert your com­pa­ny of choice].” It’s a rea­son­able notion, and it’s very rea­son­able for entre­pre­neurs and investors to be enticed by the idea; who doesn’t like the sound of a $1B pre-rev­enue acqui­si­tion?

Venture capital

  • Well, for one, there’s been a large neu­rotech­nol­o­gy exit now. That’s entic­ing.
  • This is almost cer­tain­ly going to put neu­ro onto the radars of gen­er­al­ist VCs and/or spe­cial­ist VCs who just haven’t spe­cial­ized in neu­rotech yet but have plen­ty of adja­cent knowl­edge in con­sumer elec­tron­ics, tech­ni­cal­ly inno­v­a­tive hard­ware, med­ical devices, AI of var­i­ous sorts, etc. This is a good thing, but neu­rotech founders should think care­ful­ly about how to approach the edu­ca­tion of non-neu­ro (read: most) investors. Have primer mate­ri­als pre­pared, have cur­rent investors on hand will­ing to help in the edu­ca­tion­al process, and prac­tice explain­ing neu­rotech­nol­o­gy to peo­ple in a way that’s impar­tial and only as infor­ma­tive as your audi­ence wants.

Q: What does this acquisition get Facebook?

  • A bunch of tal­ent. A bunch.
  • I don’t think this acqui­si­tion was about neu­ro; this acqui­si­tion was about win­ning AR/VR (note: Aug­ment­ed & Vir­tu­al Real­i­ty). As some­one who pre­vi­ous­ly worked on a fair­ly intri­cate VR inter­face, I’d argue the mod­ern miss­ing piece in AR/VR is the abil­i­ty to have degrees of free­dom of con­trol com­men­su­rate to what we have over our laptops—i.e., the same degrees of free­dom of our hands. That’s what Face­book got with this acqui­si­tion: the erad­i­ca­tion of the bar­ri­er between VR and full-depth, intri­cate appli­ca­tions. To quote a close friend who works in AR/VR, in ref­er­ence to this acqui­si­tion, “It’s an arms race out here” and Face­book just found its new arms in the arms (get it? EMG?).

Q: What are the characteristics of EMG use-cases? Pros/cons? Does it obviate the need for head-worn BCIs?

  • In prin­ci­ple, EMG will even­tu­al­ly give your com­put­er access to any­thing it wants to know about your hands. If we’re con­strain­ing our­selves to the phys­i­cal con­trol mech­a­nisms we’ve evolved to use, then hand kine­mat­ics recon­struc­tion is as good as it gets.
  • EEG (or oth­er non­in­va­sive modal­i­ties), on the oth­er hand, enable inter­ac­tions we haven’t evolved; where­as as hominids we’ve always used our hands to manip­u­late things, we have not lit­er­al­ly used our brains. The ques­tion is whether non­in­va­sive sens­ing of con­trol sig­nals that don’t cooc­cur with actu­al or intend­ed phys­i­cal motion ulti­mate­ly leads to as many degrees of free­dom as hand manip­u­la­tion, and what sorts of manip­u­la­tions are bet­ter-suit­ed to abstract con­trol (brain) vs. evolved con­trol (hands/arms).
  • EEG is bet­ter for motor impair­ment use-cas­es because it doesn’t rely on neur­al sig­nals prop­a­gat­ing down the spinal cord.
  • We still need cen­tral ner­vous sys­tem neu­rotech­nolo­gies to han­dle cog­ni­tion and emo­tion. To appre­ci­ate the sig­nif­i­cance of this, con­sid­er the trend (with all its com­plex pos­i­tives and neg­a­tives) toward under­stand­ing the men­tal states of users in fin­er-grained detail so that we can adapt tech­nol­o­gy, and even phys­i­cal envi­ron­ments, to these states. There are a big class of prob­lems that impli­cate cog­ni­tion and emo­tion, and EMG won’t help us there.
  • So, no, CTRL-Labs does not obvi­ate head-worn BCIs!

These are my ini­tial thoughts. They’ll change and become more detailed over time. Mean­while, please reach out and share your lat­est and great per­spec­tives.

Avery Bedows is the Neu­rotech­nol­o­gy Spe­cial­ist at Loup Ven­tures, a ven­ture fund invest­ing in fron­tier tech com­pa­nies automat­ing the world and build­ing new ways to expe­ri­ence it. Dis­claimer: I active­ly write about the themes in which we invest or may invest. My opin­ions here are not intend­ed for use in mak­ing any invest­ment deci­sions; pro­vid­ed sole­ly for infor­ma­tion­al pur­pos­es.


News in Context:

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Leave a Reply

Categories: Cognitive Neuroscience, Technology

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters,  SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking how brain science can improve our health and our lives.

Search in our archives

Follow us and Engage via…

RSS Feed

Watch All Recordings Now (40+ Speakers, 12+ Hours)