Slashdot Mirror
Bionic Eyes
DNAhelix writes: "From NASA: Bionic Eyes - Using space technology, scientists have developed extraordinary ceramic photocells that could repair malfunctioning human eyes."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
After all the years of eye damage from CRT radiation I have a chance to see again :) This will sell well with all the hardcore hackers :)
#include <Xenph Yan>
I think that a large portion of the /. community falls under the "malfunctioning eye" category.
Well, the article is from NASA, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised when aliens contribute to the articles.
Bad grammar aside, anyone know what an Ignatiev is? ;)
-- Dan
Looks to me like a brilliant joint venture between biology and technology. This first step is to see if we can provide some vision to blind people, or to enhance the vision of almost-blind people.
If we can get such things to work, we could be close to getting good night-vision enhancements for people with normal sight as well.
And the best thing... I dont really see how this technology could be abused. Many other implants and biotech research projects are accused of being too much sci-fi (stem cell research, organ transplants, organ growth etc). Some communities are having a hard time accepting those, because they see the risks that follows (ethical questions about life). But this seems to be more like improved glasses, and even the Pope are using those =)
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
That's weird, I was just thinking about the artificial eyes in William Gibson's novels and how they'd possibly be done.
I think the most difficult part about this is how the nerves will react. I think they're very right about the brain needing training to adapt to this. I'm pretty confident it could do it, but I don't know how much training it would take.
I thought the process with the dissolving film was an incredible idea too.
I hope this one pulls through. Does anyone with a neuroscience background have any thoughts on the feasibility of this one?
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Based on the location within the eye that the surgery would need to take place, it seems to me that the surgery could acctually cause more problems than it fixes. Apart from that, it would be interesting to see what kind of images the brain would actually produce from the implant (no pun intended). Would it mean people being able to see again, albeit in black and white?
-- Never monkey with another Monkey's monkey
"We are conducting preliminary tests on the ceramic detectors for biocompatibility, and they appear to be totally stable"
Hmmm... As a lifelong glasses/contacts wearer, I don't like the sound of the words 'preliminary' and 'appear' in this article. By the time they're actually ready, I bet I'll be long gone. A shame.
Long term testing needs to be done too; since the eyes deteriorate with age (which can adversely affect the results of current corrective surgery, such as LASIK where if you get it done too soon, you'll need glasses again by the time you're 35-40) I'd love to know what will happen to this technology.
Don't get me wrong; it's way cool. But these are my eyes, dammit!
The question I have about your comment however is: if your retina is detaching, wouldn't this technology be just as ineffective as your existing retina?
This seems to be a pretty invasive procedure and might even make your problem worse as the retina is 'elevated' to insert the arrays.
This could probably speed or complicate your problem based on the type of retinal detachment you have. (more information on retinal detachment here: http://www.vrmny.com/retinal_detachment.htm
Pardon me, but reading the article, two major questions came to my mind.
The question of availability has already been asked, and the answer clearly is in a long long time. I'm glad to hear they found some desperate person to accept to test the technology as soon as 2002 (don't misunderstand me, I'd be desperate too if I lost my eyes), but come on. It won't work right the first time, nor the second. And then they'll have to conduct large-scale studies to optimize the huge amount of parameters and tunings such operations involve. I don't expect such operations becoming common before ten or twenty years.
But moreover, how much will this cost? Ultra-thin ceramic films don't grow on trees, and I'd be surprised they'd become cheap, relatively speaking, anyday soon. Besides I guess that people able to put millimeter-sized implants at the back of the eye are not selling their skills for free, far from it. I think only a few crazy millionaires will have a chance to try it in the next few years, if even they dare, or their insurances allow them.
First off, don't be fooled by the date on this article. Steve Austin has been testing bionic equipment since his crash at NASA.
My only question for this "new" technology is: Do we still have to listen to that damned "Bionic" noise everytime we focus on something with our bionic eyes? I mean geez, that noise got old fast, not to mention that it makes it hard to be discrete when you're using your bionic vision on the hot chick standing next to you. She hears the noise, looks over at you, sees your bionic chubber and knows what YOU'VE been doing. C'mon NASA, hook us up.
;)
-- Dan
Using space technology...
"Space technology"? What is this, the 1950's?
"Hey, Space Jimmy, time for your Space Math lesson."
"Spaceriffic!"
"What's space two plus space two?"
"Space four!"
There is also a story in the press today about some Japanese researchers who have developed eyes biologically.
You can order mirrored contact lenses (prescription or non-prescription) from several theatrical F/X shops, including this one.
I used to want those, but now I've upped my sights (so to speak). Now I want tinted contact lenses that change into "sunglasses" in bright light, like those variable-tint "sun sensor" glasses. They'd basically be enhancing the degree to which your iris can vary the amount of light that gets into your eye -- that'd be a "bionic" device I'd happily pay for.
-Mark
Finnaly a piece of tech that bean counters and lawyers could appreciate. For those cut throat office enviroments... Eyes in the back of my head.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
I wouldn't mod your post as funny. Quite serious. One of my family members has retinitis pigmentosa and is adamant that science will restore (to some degree) her sight before she dies. She refuses to learn braille for this reason. I don't encourage that viewpoint, but do share with her each eye science article that gets posted here.
I'm helping spec her computer and accessibility software now, her first PC since MS-DOS...
that they don't say anything whatsoever about how they are going to hook this device up to the optic nerve? Without that, everything is for nothing. Do they really know how to do this? If so, why wasn't it mentioned in the article? If not, why was the article written at all?
There are a number of issues with the use of retinal prosthetics. One is the light sensitivity. Silicon based retinal implants have been explored for some time and beyond the silicon toxicity issues, there are issues of the sensitivity of the photoreceptive properties of aritificial circuits. The retina is not simply a CCD and artificial silicon "retinas" are nowhere near the real sensitivities of a human retina. The light required to activate many of these chips is equivalent to shining the full brightness of the sun into the eye.
Additionally, these studies are making several assumptions about the nature of retinal degenerations in that bionic based implants will be able to successfully interface with the ganglion cells or the output cells of the retina. I have read nothing that examines the field effects of these chips. In other words, how do we know that when these chips are activated that they just stimulate the ganglion cells? Basic physics tells us that there should be field effects that also might influence amacrine cells, horizontal cells, remaining bipolar cells etc...
The other assumption that almost no-one in the visual research community has addressed is the intrinsic circuitry of the retina in cases of retinal degeneration. The underlying assumption is that in retinitis pigmentosa and macular degenerations the photoreceptors degenerate from a variety of primary insults (genetic and environmental) and the rest of the retina remains relatively intact. Preliminary research by myself and others indicate that this is NOT the case. The retina continues to degenerate and remodel itself with large numbers of retinal cell subclasses that dissappear and move into other layers of the retina among other dramatic changes.
This does not neccessarily shut the door on retinal transplantation research, rather it indicates that there are other issues that need to be addressed and straightforward transplantations (biologic and bionic based) are not neccessarily going to work in the short term. I think eventually they will work with a combination of pharmacotherapy and/or gene therapy, but we are probably 50 years or more off. Therefore in response to another poster who has a family member who suffers from retinitis pigmentosa and refuses to learn braille, I would suggest that she does not hold out hope that a cure will be just around the corner and make the effort to learn braille and use other methods such as computer mods with large text etc... to compensate.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Umm, I'm going to classify it as pretty funny.
About your sister; her viewpoint does not strike me as particularly healthy. For 20+ years I've been told that science would cure my macular degeneration, and my mother was told the same thing about HER eyes for 20+ years before me. Living life waiting for a cure is unhealthy, as it can lead to depression when that cure doesn't arrive, and unproductive for obvious reasons.
I read articles like this and take them with a grain of salt. They're neat little curiosities, but they get shoved in the same mental pile as all of the stories about terahertz processors, holographic memory, and privatized spaceflight that we'll have "some day Real Soon Now." So don't hold your breath.
A bit of advice (which I'm sure she's heard a hundred times before) for your sister; don't wait for a cure. Assume that it's never going to happen, and get on with your life. It's a whole lot easier than you think.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
Ahh, but she can keep reading without knowing braille.
1) Books on tape.
2) Scan pages, convert to text, have the PC read it to her. There is software designed expressly for this purpose.
3) E-mail, and web browsing (though browsing is a pain because of crappy web design).
I think the most troublesome issue will be note taking. She either has to have a sharp memory, or use a handheld designed for the blind.