>>13908105EEG, or MEG (similar enough for this argument)
>electrodes need to be placed on top of the head>electrodes need to be perfectly static relative to the head>electrodes need to be lubed up so that the conductance isn't too terribly harmed by the scalp and hairFinally
>EEG poorly measures neural activity that occurs below the upper layers of the brain>It is mathematically impossible to reconstruct a unique intracranial current source for a given EEG signal (inverse problem)I don't know how this fucking 'EEG Satellite' is supposed to have the spatial resolution to isolate and keep track of a single normie NPC, much less accurately gather data from the whole brain. You'd also need an insanely fast computer to process all that data in real time.
fNIRS (Functional near-infrared spectroscopy)
>uses near infrared to penetrate the head and measure the brain's metabolic activity >this is the same signal (BOLD) as measured by fMRI >a huge emitter could perhaps track an NPC in a room or something>temporal resolution is utter shit (6s delay)>still suffers from only measuring the upper layers of the brainI don't know man, I tried my best to think of this advice, but it will take a few more years until we are there, and we need better imaging methods. Although the imaging methods we already have are literal fucking miracles of magic if you ask me; imaging tracking the activity of a living brain and still bitching about it.
