Slashdot Mirror
Bionic Retinas Give Patients Sight
The Noof writes "
Yahoo News is running a
story about patients who have been given partial sight thanks to implants
of silicon-based bionic retinas.
" The article notes that the implant is having a "rescue effect" on the other components of the retina, restoring cells around the implant and making them useful again." Amazing stuff.
For some reason, I read this story's title as "Bionic Retinas Give Patents Sight" which I thought was a reference to issuing/implanting bionic retinas in USPTO employees so that they would be better able to read the rediculous patents which cross their desks.
Maybe I could use a set of bionic retinas...
Neat stuff.
How long until they offer an "improved" version, that has an overlaid clock/calendar, or just a HUD connected to the implanted, bone-conductive phone?
How about that "cybog" professor and all the hassles he had getting past airport security. While these things are tiny, I can easily forsee a future whene implants are regulated country-by-country.
"Sorry sir. Memory-storage implants are not legal in Canada. You must reboard the airplane."
Johnny Mnemonic, here we come.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Optobionics is using the energy in the light to do this, which differs from alternatives (the epiretinal approach) which requires external power sources and are therefore big fat and clunky.
Could this technology have a function in cameras?
What kind of interference will upset the function of this device which wouldn't affect a normal eye? Can it be remotely manipulated in such a way as to malfunction or function in a way that a remote attacker may desire it to function?
The fact that I have to ask these questions makes me hesitant to put electronics in my head, but I can imagine that the concern would be less for someone who couldn't see without them.
It's nice to see technology that really improves people's lives, instead of possibly giving slight and ambiguous gains to their productivity or make it that much easier to send 10-word messages to other people within urban areas. I like advancements in 3d vid cards and such as much as the next guy, but this is what technology's really all about. Helping the blind see again? Excellent. I'd give back the Internet if it would find us a cure for cancer.
Yes, it would be awful if Yahoo got slashdotted, wouldn't it? Better post the article, just to make sure.
May we never see th
While this indeed is a great innovation, we must remember that this has only been tested by people affected by retinitis pigmentosa. Whether the optical implants can be used to restore sight for people from eye injuries or other diseases remains to be seen.
A lowdown on retinitis pigmentosa can be found here.
I was wondering how in the world it was powered. Come to find out, it's just a bunch of tiny solar cells according to
this article at How Stuff Works.
The light coming into the eye is focused on the retina. Solar cells convert light to electricity. Electricity stimulates optic nerves. Voila --Sight!
There is an extremely interesting article in a recent Discover magazine about a man who was blind from the age of 2-3 recieving sight back in one eye thanks to stem cell implants.
While after the operation he physically had 20/20 vision, he actually saw more along the lines of 20/500. The problem wasn't his eye, but his brain. He just hadn't learned how to fully percieve eyesight. One interesting note is that he does not perceive optical illusions. Since he's well past that critical stage of mental development when one is supposed to get it hardwired, he'll have a rough time getting his eyesight anywhere near normal. In fact, several other people who were blind as small children and had similar operations say they would rather be blind now.
At any rate, while this will certainly be a great help to those who lost their sight as adults... it may not be of too much help to those born blind.
Well, I'm sure you've all thought about it. Science can help the lame walk, help the mute communicate, and now it lets the blind see. I wonder how long the ultra-right can continue condemning science as evil.
...running on an AMD system
Too bad we'd all die from heat exhaustion. Well, unless you want to have a liquid cooled rib cage.
You're pretty much right. There's an article in the June issue of Discover (which the website does not yet acknowledge the existence of, oh well) about corneal repairs, and one man in particular, blind since age 3, who had his corneas repaired. And yes, although his eyes now should allow him to see fine, he can't interpret what he sees. (One interesting side effect: he's immune to certain optical illusions, because he never learned to interpret images in the way that gives rise to the illusion!) Studies have been done with animals, too, in which animals are blindfolded at birth and their eyes only uncovered after they've reached adulthood - and although their eyes are physically fine, they're unable to actually use their vision. "Seeing" seems to be mostly post-processing by the brain.
There's much more detail on the history, design, and development of the device in this EE times article. I was especially struck by how they persevered. They started on this in 1990 and things did not go entirely smoothly:
This version of the device contains about 3500 light detecting cells. If this version works out okay, they are planning to develop a much larger version of the chip.
I mean, I'm sure these things must build up some kind of reserve -- they wouldn't be practical otherwise -- but exactly how much light is required to charge up? Would a low-light condition (say, street lighting in a quiet neighborhood) be too low? Is so, how long before the eyes stop functioning?
Still, interesting stuff.
Yes, it would be awful if Yahoo got slashdotted, wouldn't it?
Hey, it could be worse, how long to people link to google cache's of the API's in Google Releases an API for Their Database?
But someone might yet post a link to the google cache of his post, just in case!
It's a common fallacy to think that 20/20 vision is "perfect", and that anything better is somehow "miraculous". There are many people with better than 20/20 vision. Hell, I used to be one, until I hit puberty and started wearing glasses - really freaked my mom out to be told that I had better than 20/20 vision. Made me feel a bit freakish, truth be told.
Also keep in mind that "seeing something 20 feet away like it's 10 feet away" just means you might see a tiny bit more detail - at 20/20 vision most people can see damn near perfectly out to a LONG distance. Really makes me wonder why someone with 20/20 vision would risk their eyesight just for a marginal improvement.
On this note, anyone remember WHY they chose 20/20 as the standard? Was it arbitrary?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Here is an old link to his eye thing. Here
That there is no "blind-community" counterpart to the deaf-community
Rather, there is no apparent blind community to those who are not directly involved with it.
Having blind family members, I can say that there is actually a very large blind community, which I believe is necessary. It is important to realize that people with certain types of disabilities have different struggles and lifestyles then the general population, and being involved with others who share the same experiences can definately help in making life a little easier and pleasent.
Also from my experience, people who have been blind from birth or early childhood would likely not chose to have an implant/surgery to correct the blindness for a few reasons.
First, those adults who were blind from birth have areas in the brain responsible for sight that are not developed because they have never used them. If one of these people were to undergo a operation to correct the blindness, the person's brain would still not be able to interperet the stimulus in a coherent manner. They would see, but they wouldn't understand what they were seeing.
Second (even if the first was not an issue), could you imagine viewing the world in a certain manner, and then one day, having all your preconceptions about everything shatter?
People who have been blind from birth have never seen(duh!), but they do however have an understanding about seeing (ie. colors, patterns, etc.). This differs from the actual experience of seeing as we know it, and taking those concepts away would be tramatic. Most people would be unable to cope with this.
Lastly, this is part of who the person is no matter how much it is disliked or how much of an inconvience it is. It is accepted, much like other things that (for the most part) cannot be changed. Having a hatred for something that is a piece of one's self, that cannot easily be changed, is unhealthy. So is having false dreams about "miracles" or "cures".
Yes, 20/20 is mostly arbitrary. The neumerator denotes the distance (in feet) the test is given at. (Usually 10 feet, but they use a mirror to double the distance to the standard 20 feet.) The denominator denotes the distance (in feet) at which the critical feature of the letters/numbers/shapes subtends one minute of visual angle. (Is that not a A answer, I'll find out on Friday)
USA-Democracy is 270 million YESes and NOes a day, not one every four years.
Well, i can think of a remote thingy that wouldn't bother me much. Imagine how much fun you could have had at class: looking at the board and teacher but seen some great pr0n "internally" :)
unfinished: (adj.)
From the article:
"For another patient, though, the implant has been a bit sobering, Chow said. The patient, who has begun to recognize faces, was disappointed to see how his own face had aged."
I can almost hear those doctors now. "Dude. You've been blind for many years, you were chosen to have your sight restored by a groundbreaking scientific process, and the only thing you can think about is how old you are?
Get back on that operating table, I'm gonna yank that damn chip out your eye..."
Am I a hipster-doofus?
OK, I am one of the scientists here at ARVO (Association for Research and Vision in Ophthalmology), and was present at the presentation of Dr. Chow.
I for one would love to believe in the results, but I have not seen any real scientific proof that these things work as advertised. While the video of patients was impressive and touching, there is very little hard science behind the development of the bionic retina and how it is integrating into the retinal environment. The only thing that everyone appears to be reporting on is that the chip is not rejected. And there are other more fundamental issues at work. For one, the silicon retinas require the equivalent of 3X's the brightness of the sun to activate the device and for realistic performace, they would require an external power source. The other issue is that the retinal circuitry that they are placing this bionic implant onto is severely degenerated and remodeled in these patients and may continue to degenerate further, thus complicating matters. That said, there is some indication that the surgery itself may cause some retinal rescue, not the implant. This is something they have not done control experiments on. Furthermore, the generation of low voltage current from the implant in the retina may be promoting retinal recovery of sorts while the silicon retina may not be doing anything for vision itself.
We are still a looooong ways away from the idea of a bionic retina and I think that retinal implants will actually be the least effective method in the long run. Gene therapy, viral infective methods, stem cells, and post retinal bionics will probably work optimally sooner.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Wish I had mod points. Wife is deaf blind (yes, for the third time in this story) and while she never got a load of shit from the deaf community, it's only because she flat out didn't give a fuck. She wanted implants.
We talked about it: not only would the blind 'community' embrace this, they are likely to demand the federal government pay to install them on anybody who would benefit.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I'd give back the Internet if it would find us a cure for cancer.
Forget giving it back... having it is more likely to find us a cure.
Think of all the communication and collaboration that is now possible between researchers around the world. And think of the various distributed computing projects, that use Net-connected PCs to crunch numbers for biomedical research and other causes.
Here's a link to the bionic retina implants in action.
Well, anything's better than having to wear a woman's hairpiece over your eyes.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
What he's referring to is likely that there are significant groups in the deaf community that are heavily opposed to "fixing" deafness with implants or similar, and believe it should be left as is, and that to accept implants implies that being deaf isn't "normal". Some deaf groups even consider implants a treat to particular cultural elements of the deaf community.
While I'm sure there are many blind people that would not personally want to use implants like these for whatever reason, the poster you replied to was implying that there is no strong element in the blind community that opposes such implants in principle.
Isn't amazing how fast technology moves? Remember Jordy from Star Trek? He used that big visor thing to restore his vision, and this is what writers thought would be the technology in the 24th century. Here we are in 2002, and we have a solar powered eye chip that can be implanted into the eye to give people some of their sight back, with no discomfort.
.1 but as others have mentioned how long before this changes and version 4.0 is out with default 20/15 vision and zoom controls?
Sure, it isn't perfect and it's only version
Just step back and realize what an accomplishment this is and how fast technology changes everyday. It's almost scary to think what life will be like when I turn 60.
Reminds me of something my Great Grandfather said: "I've seen the world come from stage coach to walking on the moon; nobody will ever lead that kind of life again."
Well if this is the case I would think the rate of progression will disprove this. It's amazing to think we will all outlive the advancements that occured during his lifetime, but we probably will.
This article just reaffirms that notion.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
Once again... real science beats Star Trek's proposed date and time for new toys :)
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Right. One of my good friends is an opthamologist and she says she's shocked at all the LASIK surgery advertisements running on the radio these days. They never come out and tell you all of the facts, such as the 1% risk of going totally blind from the procedure.
1% may not sound like much, but that's hardly worse than your odds of winning $5 or $10 in one of those McDonalds peel-and-win games on the french-fry boxes....
I would definitely think twice before gambling with my vision like that.
20 feet is just a practical number I guess. Whether I can see detail past 20 feet isn't as important to daily functioning.
20/10 woudl not mean 'a tiny bit more detail'.. it would mean I can read things twice as far away as I can now.
It's been said that the DRM battles will continue until wetware gets good enough that the music companies can force installation of DRM modules into everyone's brains. It think those who say that underestimate the amount of brain hacking that will go on even then? ("Windows on the Brain? No, I use OpenThought. I've got it set to claim Windows compatibilitiy, so I can get through all the security checkpoints, but it doesn't actually limit my thoughts.")
Hang around for another 50 years or so. That's where it looks like we're headed.
What's more important? Quality of life or quantity?
Quantity of sufficiently good life. I reject both a short but full life and a long but dull life. I want, and will claim for myself, a long (infinite if possible) life full of doing what I want to do. Merely extending life is not the answer; the answer is extending active life, making it so you don't have to "retire" into boredom (even working 'til I drop dead would be better than the purgatory of a mindless retirement home, though I would of course prefer more freedom to work on what I want without needing to worry about money).
I disagree. I'm (natch) totally ignorant of what it must be like to be blind, I don't even know any blind people - but if it were possible...
... I'd certainly be first in line to enhance *my* perceptual capabillities. I'd like to be able to see in infrared, have macro-zoom abillities (preferably stereoscopic), micromillimetre radar and some form of high-rez sonar. Why not?
Oh, and there's prolly other stuff as well, like being able to sense electromagnetic fields(sp?)...
I'd bet a sufficiently large Beowulf cluster of slashdot effects could take even Yahoo! down. ^_^
While much of your post is insightful, I think you make some assumptions that are questionable, if not perhaps outright wrong.
This differs from the actual experience of seeing as we know it, and taking those concepts away would be tramatic. Most people would be unable to cope with this.
People have their preconceptions shattered every day. You are right, it can be a very traumatic experience, but people can and do cope with it, often so well that they become more than they were previously as a result. I think you are wrong to asert that most people would be unable to cope with it. I'm not even sure most people would choose not to cope with it and remain blind, given the choice.
Lastly, this is part of who the person is no matter how much it is disliked or how much of an inconvience it is.
Being cancer prone, or obese, or having a sexual dysfunction is also a part of what a person is. People change, sometimes for the worse, hopefully for the better.
Althoug I have no idea what it would be like to be blind, I can say with absolute certainty that if someone came along and offered to implant a Guizgovot(tm), that would offer me a new sense hitherto unknown to any life form on earth ("a gestalt sense of mean density of matter within two hundred miles, with acuity down to the molecular level accessible by different levels of concentration and focus, coupled or decoupled from the mean electromagnetic flux of the same" the advertisment might read) I would jump at the opportunity to enhance myself in such a way, even being relatively clueless as to how my mind would interpret such a sense, or what good it would do me. An opportunity to experience the world around me with a new and different sense, to sense it in a whole new way, would be a profoundly precious opportunity.
It might change an aspect of who I am, and certainly become a part of who I am, but it by no means would denigrate my identity or eradicate who I was. Neither would getting a prosthetic eye to replace a dysfunctional one, any more than a wheelchair, or a walker, denigrates the identity of or changes who a person with said disability is.
Deaf people who are objecting to devices that can cure deafness, which is by any reasonable definition a deficit or challenge, if not an outright disability, are simply luddite jackasses IMHO, and while deafness might be a blessing in some situations (a screeching el-train going by comes to mind as one) and sign language is something we all should probably learn anyway (I've often wished I could hold a conversation in sign language when hanging out in a loud bar, or, again, as a loud train goes by overhead), rejecting access to a new sense because you think it somehow denigrates others with the same disability is just plain Stupid.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy