There’s already a “ping cursor” system in operating systems, but most would probably just move it in circles real fast so they see it like everyone else who forgets where their mouse cursor is.
It’s still not really going to help with the mental fatigue. Even when you know where the cursor is, it still fundamentally changes the way you interact with it.
For a mouse the process is (find cursor, move cursor from point A to point B) the proprioceptive sensation from your hand helps translate and guide the movements happening in 3 dimensional space to the 2 dimensional movement on the screen.
For brain interface machines the process is (find cursor, find point B, concentrate on moving away from point A towards point B) It sounds trivial, but without proprioceptive information it turns a leap from a to b into a step by step walk where you can’t feel your feet. None of it is reactionary, it’s all manual concentration.
We should be moving to something as easy to put on as a hat, not something that requires brain surgery to update
Im a provider specializing in orthotics and prosthetics, and have actually worked with some psych/philosophy professors on a similar topic, namely the similar interface problems found in prosthetics and in VR.
I personally think brain interface and the vast majority of VR projects are and have always been a failed technology. Mainly because the tech people whom pioneer them have wild misconceptions on how the brain and body function as a whole. Most perceive the brain as a processor that you plug information to and then it dictates reactions to its attached hardware.
In reality there is no separation of body and the brain, in fact according to psychologist specializing in embodied cognition, our cognitive abilities are formed by the dynamic interaction between our actions and the environment around us. Meaning, separating a persons perceptive abilities fundamentally inhibits our ability to function in any given environment.
In a paper I co-wrote we were comparing the similar interface problems with high end VR, and Life like prosthetics. In VR as graphics improved and moved from simulacrum to simulation people began to experience more problems with nausea and motion sickness. In prosthetics as limbs became more lifelike, we began to see patient compliance worsen, and reports of disassociation from the limb.
In both cases it’s proposed the tech became good enough to fool the brain into attempting to interfacing with it as an extension of reality, instead of interfacing with it as a tool. As the brain begins to except it as “real” it has a hard time orienting the perception it receives that does not align with its new “reality”
Sorry for wall of text, I guess I don’t get to talk about this aspect of my research enough!