Re: [s-t] olfactory profiling (fwd)

[Mike Rosing]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Eugen Leitl wrote:

 Realtime, cheap, reliable, invisible. Hard to fake, especially if combined
 with other biometrics. Can be as sensitive as a canine, in principle.
[...]
 http://www.eps.gov/spg/USA/USAMC/DAAD19/DAAD19-03-R-0004/SynopsisP.html

I would think anyone doing brain research on dogs should be advised of
this.  The overall processing in a dogs brain would be the first thing you
want to study.  Building devices to mimic what a dog does is the second
step.  I'm not into dogs myself, but they do have some amazing abilities.
Something like 70% of the dog's brain is devoted to it's nose.  That
should tell them something about the difficulty of the task :-)

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Woof (Re: [s-t] olfactory profiling (fwd))

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 11:00 AM 12/17/02 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
RAH
Seriously. cf recent neuroscience/paleoanthropology research about the
man-dog interface...

He's talking about a recent study (in _Science_) comparing the ability
of domestic
dogs, wolves, and chimps to interpret a human's signals -pointing, gaze,
etc.-- about the
location of food.  Dogs were better than wolves and chimps.  Even
dog puppies were better than chimps or wolves.

Not bad for a dozen Kyears of selection.