I don't even want to put IO into the device at all. Not only because it increases cost and size, but because I don't what the user having to interact. We have to find better ways to fit the device in your life, so you don't even think about it.
I strongly believe that the class of widget I'm building should stay firmly out of the user's way. The point is to forget it's there. So, as simple IO as possible.
For example, I helped someone transfer their stuff from their old iPhone to their new one a few years ago. The way you're supposed to do it is touch your old iPhone to the new one and it'll just work. Needless to say, it didn't. I think it was about an hour of rebooting the old and new ones before it finally caught. Since there weren't any logs or settings to change or any way at all to influence the process it was more frustrating than magic.
Now, it's possible your product really is as simple as turning it on and it'll just work, in the same way a lamp is "turn on and it works", but if there's any configuration at all that the device does, please expose it to the users. Human brains are incredible at finding patterns, generally better than computers, and if there's a mismatch between the human's model of how something works and the device's model, it's best to allow the human to change the device's model
An app to my brain screams "depends on your phone and will be outdated at some point; requires picking and unlocking your phone to use it; will have updates that change/ruin it at some point".
I just want to feel a button and press it, especially for things supposed to be used in the dark while sleeping.
There are functions managed in the app but we aim for those to be rarely interacted with. All the interactions that you have with the device should be as simple as your wireless earbuds, maybe even easier.
1. tES, transcranial electric stimulation, used by the Somnee sleep band.
2. acoustic stimulation (sound waves), used by the Elemind sleep band, which uses EEG sensors to determine the exact sound waves to apply.
I admit I was quite skeptical, but a brief look showed that both bands have a decent amount of clinical data backing them up, although funded by the companies (unsurprising at this point, but would be good to get some independent studies on their efficacy).
Curious if anyone has tried any of these bands and what they thought.
There is a ton of snake oil in the industry, and I see so many people building similar products, that take the language of the research papers, and apply it to absolute nonsense.
There is over a decade of research in slow-wave enhancement, Philips funds a lot of research in this space, and even had a slow-wave enhancement device out in 2018/2019.
I'm not sure if what you are asking is "are we snake oil", or "do I get people asking". But in general, I hear so many people talk about grounding mats (no scientific evidence), EMF, neuromodulation to put you to sleep instantly, and so much other garbage, that I wish people would question things more.
I wish people knew how to read a basic research paper and decide if it even says what the company is claiming. I'm amazed that a company can put up a page that says "science", with a picture of a person in a lab coat, and people go "ok, must be true".
We're on a long view of this, and while VCs are dumping tens of millions into snake oil "neuromodulation" companies, we're taking a slower approach and playing the long-term game.
I'm keen to hear your thoughts.
If you look at the research behind elemind, it is clear they designed a study to show a positive result. Somnee, less so, but it is only a single paper.
It's interesting to me you used "sound waves" to describe acoustic stimulation, which is exactly NOT what we are doing, or how auditory stimulation work (in our case).
A "slow wave" aka delta waves is the measure of the synchronous firing of neurons which is the hallmark of deep sleep and the foundation of health. It is the activity of the brain pumping the glymphatic system, which is clearing metabolic waste, and is linked to immune function, hormone response, parasympathetic response, and more.
Our EEG headband is detecting these slow-waves (the firing of neurons), and when we detect this brain activity, at a precise point in this synchronous firing, we interrupt the brain, with a brief pulse of sound. In response to this interruption, the brain goes "hey, this is vital to my health, don't mess with me right now", and increases the synchronous firing of neurons, both in that slow wave, as well as following up with another slow-wave after, sometimes 2, even 3, rarely 4 (but it is person dependent).
A slow-wave only lasts for 0.8-1.2 seconds, so this timing is very precise, and we can see the change in brain activity immediately. We stimulate in a 5 on/ 5 off protocol, so we can see the change in brain activity within seconds. We are not comparing different nights, as we know sleep is different across nights. The response is very consistent.
If you read the research from elemind and somnee, they sound very similar, with a huge red flag. They both say "we stimulate near the peak of an alpha wave, and then you fall asleep". There is no measure of a change in the brain activity. Just alpha wave, stimulation, sleep.
I can go on and on about all the red flags, but you can read about elemind here - https://neurotechnology.substack.com/p/avoiding-neurotechs-t...
I found the Somnee headband unbearably uncomfortable, and it didn't do anything for me.
You mention acoustic stimulation as "sound waves" and that's where I wanted to clarify the whole "listen to a 120hz sound and it will improve XYZ".
As far as I am aware, all of this sound waves stuff and interacting with brain waves at certain frequencies is nonsense. A brain wave is a human construct for how we visualize the electrical activity of the brain, just like an EKG is a visualization of electrical activity of the heart.
You'd never say "we're interacting with your heart wave at this frequency", right?
I have many bug-bears with the industry as a whole, and it is a bit terrifying to me that I'm working in this space surrounded by so much nonsense.
We don't fund studies. The scientific principles of what we are doing has been known for about 10 years now. But it is difficult to do, and Philips have a TON of patents around this space - they fund a lot of the research.
However, we support researchers who are already looking into this space because we have the best technology (well, waiting to be proven but we have advanced beyond the protocols of Philips and Dreem).
I hope that helps understand where we're at, and maybe how we differ. I'm happy to answer any more questions.
There are a bunch of research papers on our website, as well as some very basic descriptions of how it works. https://affectablesleep.com
We haven't had too many issues with BLE, but I think the UI of the mobile app needs to clearly communicate the connection state, and not just "connected/disconnected" but more of "last connection, the device will ping in x seconds" so the person knows the device will be looking for the phone.
We have a few tricks up our sleeve, as we're like Santa (we know when you are sleeping, we know when you're awake), and seeing as the headband is only used for sleeping, we can have an open connection when you are awake, and then go into low power mode when we detect you've closed your eyes, and then we can ping on a more reasonable schedule.
We've had very few issues with BLE, but it is one of the things I'm most worried about as it absolutely kills the experience.
People's subjective experience may vary, but relying on an app objectively entails more complexity and risk exposure for the user than exposing on-device configuration.
It's quite possible that many people who say they prefer using apps do indeed experience a higher level of frustration over the full span of their usage, and are only expressing their immediate-term evaluation at the outset of usage.