If you know that at [timestamp] a certain word was audible in my vicinity, it might be reasonably safe to guess that I also thought this word around that point, because I heard that word.
The EEG signal my brain creates might behave in a unique way when I heard (and thus, thought) that word. Over time, it might be possible an EEG sensor to notice that unique pattern repeatedly.
So my hope is that decoding EEG might be perhaps simpler than people currently assume. Most studies create their datasets using "lots of participants, participating for relatively short periods" rather than "one participant, over an extremely long period".
If it's possible to have my EEG reasonably-well mapped and decoded (this signal previously repeatedly meant I was hearing the words "uuuh me so horny", to use your example) it might then become possible to read mapped words in the EEG signals even when the mapped words were not audible.
This, in turn, might mean it was possible to read (some of) the words I am thinking.
As a sibling commenter pointed out, it's insanely noisy data, so I have no idea whether any of the above will ever prove possible.
But mapping assumptions in the manner you laid out isn't something I would have any idea how to do, not least because I often hate the sports teams I love when they are underperforming.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65499-0
If you know that at [timestamp] a certain word was audible in my vicinity, it might be reasonably safe to guess that I also thought this word around that point, because I heard that word.
The EEG signal my brain creates might behave in a unique way when I heard (and thus, thought) that word. Over time, it might be possible an EEG sensor to notice that unique pattern repeatedly.
So my hope is that decoding EEG might be perhaps simpler than people currently assume. Most studies create their datasets using "lots of participants, participating for relatively short periods" rather than "one participant, over an extremely long period".
If it's possible to have my EEG reasonably-well mapped and decoded (this signal previously repeatedly meant I was hearing the words "uuuh me so horny", to use your example) it might then become possible to read mapped words in the EEG signals even when the mapped words were not audible.
This, in turn, might mean it was possible to read (some of) the words I am thinking.
As a sibling commenter pointed out, it's insanely noisy data, so I have no idea whether any of the above will ever prove possible.
But mapping assumptions in the manner you laid out isn't something I would have any idea how to do, not least because I often hate the sports teams I love when they are underperforming.