Slashdot Mirror


Still More Bionic Eyes

jeno writes "An Australian-invented 'bionic eye' device is about to begin human trials. The device consists of a silicon chip inserted into the eye, which is designed to act like a retina -- receiving images captured by a pair of glasses worn by the user."

161 comments

  1. Glasses? by Kwikymart · · Score: 2, Funny

    When can I get a Geordie LaForge Visor so I can tell when people are lying by their body temperature?

    --

    Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
    1. Re:Glasses? by smead · · Score: 1

      forget geordie, hook it up to one of those sony cameras that let you see though clothes. where do i sign? i'll participate in some clinical trials. -smead

    2. Re:Glasses? by Out4Blood · · Score: 1

      "At least 12 Web sites feature pictures of women who look almost naked..."

      Only 12? Then who is doing all the pr0n spamming?

      --
      - Consult the dictionary frequently to avoid mispelling
  2. nice idea and ultimate spyware by stuuf · · Score: 1, Troll

    just wait until the FBI finds out how to pick up the signals going from the glasses to the eye.

    --

    Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it

    1. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or MPAA invents some CRM (Cybernetic Rights Management) to control the images picked up by the camera and sent to the eye.

    2. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Lord knows there are probably dozens of blind serial killers with new found bionic vision wreaking havoc upon us at this very moment!

    3. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by NoProblem · · Score: 1

      Somewhere there must be a serious shortage of tin hats.

    4. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by cscx · · Score: 2

      Oh, enough with the anti-Government conspiracy theories already! When will you all understand that if you have nothing to hide that there is no reason to be paranoid like this. What are you a terrorist or something?

    5. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes everyone who cares about thier constitutional rights and enviroment, or simply supports the other party must be a terrorist

    6. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One need only look into the history of germay to find out why this type of "paranoya is quite justified". I'm sorry your ignorance prevents you from seeing that. Maybe they should start working on a version that helps people who only see the world through rose colored glasses.

    7. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by cscx · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry but this isn't 1940's Nazi Germany -- this is America 2002, we're not a police state, no matter how much you may think this to be the case.

    8. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by darqchild · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not american, so I'm not entirely sure about this. But my impression of the Patriot Act, is that it creates an unofficial police state.

      Doesn't the FBI now has the ability to detain anybody, indefinitely, without the right to a trial, or access to a laywer?

      The whole bloody thing is a giant witch hunt. I could point a finger at anybody, say that they're a terrorist, and the FBI can essentially lock them up forever without a trial.

      That sounds like a police state to me

      --
      What? Me? Worry?
    9. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by wheany · · Score: 1

      Stop flattering yourselves! Why the fuck would "the government" be interesed in what you see? Especially since the image is 10*10 pixels, and the transmitting radius is 25mm (or 1 inch). To spy on you, "they" would have to be right next to you, and if they were, well, why the hell would they want to see stuff through your eyes? Why not just look themself?

      And before you start with the "but they can read your monitor from across the street", try powering that monitor of yours with the batteries that come with the camera. The transmitter in the camera doesn't consume nearly as much energy as any kind of monitor.

    10. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by earthpig · · Score: 1

      type should read
      "this is America 2002, we're in a police state, no matter how much you may think this not to be the case."

    11. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by earthpig · · Score: 1

      error correction:

      i typed type when i should have typed typo!!!.

      sorry for the confusion

    12. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by ianxm · · Score: 1
      just wait until the FBI finds out how to pick up the signals going from the glasses to the eye.

      Or the opposite, wait untill you can transmit to the glasses. Once the resolution is higher, imagine playing quake and really feel like you're in the game.

    13. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was some pretty fucked up moderation.
      Score: 1
      +1 insightful
      Score: 2
      -1 Troll
      Score: 1
      +1 underrated
      Score: 2
      -1 troll
      Score: 1

      I wonder if karma includes how confusing the quality of your comments was to mederators?

      -stuuf

    14. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      Due to the nature of the community, you can often replace "the government" with "a malicious party."

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    15. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by Myco · · Score: 2

      Nazi Germany wasn't always Nazi Germany. "Good" societies can go bad. Do you think the Germans were just stupid, or inherently evil (en masse, I mean -- certainly some individuals could easily be argued to have been evil, by most definitions of the term).

    16. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by RegularFry · · Score: 1

      I genuinely think that this is going to happen, one way or another. Even normal-sighted people are going to get some variant on this idea - apart from anything else, it would make IR goggles a fair bit simpler, because you don't need half of the imaging optics, and there's no reason that the signal sent to the chip needs to originate with an optical device. Can you imagine seeing the sound in a club? Or how about flying a submarine with active (or passive) sonar? See what the whales see. Cool or what?
      It may even be plausible to see with passive microwave pickup - the headset might be a little large, though.

      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
    17. Re:nice idea and ultimate spyware by Criton · · Score: 1

      Unlikely as the data is sent on a laser aimed into the eye to the retinal implant not by RF.
      The same laser also powers the chip.

  3. Bionic Eye by locarecords.com · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Seems a bit useless to me. Much cooler if it projected onto the glasses so that you could get a cool 3-d image to supplement our normal vision. Who would need television or monitors then?

    Also combined with the cool no-hands eye typing (see http://www.economist.com) that would be a wicked HCI system.

    LOCA

    --
    ---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
    1. Re:Bionic Eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems a bit useless to me. Much cooler if [..] supplement our normal vision.

      Uhh.. the whole point is to restore vision to those who've lost it, not provide "cool 3D" images to those who still have it.

    2. Re:Bionic Eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you daft? How is this useless? It can help people SEE!

    3. Re:Bionic Eye by dextr0us · · Score: 1

      yeah..... damn those blind people for being blind. They forget that instead of these people developing technology for them, they could be using their talents for me to make more 1337 gaming consoles. fucking people and their blindness to everything not directly related to them (intentional use of the word)

      --
      "Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
    4. Re:Bionic Eye by Jeff+Fohl · · Score: 1

      I already have 3D vision, don't you?

    5. Re:Bionic Eye by axxackall · · Score: 1
      I don't need 3D as I don't see 2D well enough. So, I guess I need such eye (better two) for living.

      What you need is a toy for entertainment. similar toy military and other extreme seperts need to extend the natural vision. But that is completely different task and perhaps a different market.

      --

      Less is more !
    6. Re:Bionic Eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have 3D vision. Each eye has a array of nevers much like a digital camera in the back of your eye. The "image" is then thresholded on each nerve (its more complex then that, but basicly its a nerve limiter), so you don't see too bright of things, or too many paterns. It also turns off your color recpetors (cones?) at night and turns on your rod(might have my cones and rods backwords) since they are more sensitive to light.

      Next in the optic nerve, before the brain, the image has line and shape information added. This is why you have have visual illusions and why they are so hard (impossable?) to relearn. This also one of the most impressive parts of the human body. A good spot for AI research.

      Finaly your brain processes the information. Your brain then comes up with the 3d space around you, from your memory of the objects, or what you think is there.

      A little experament is to move your head around when you look at it and you will get more spacal information.

      Another thing to think about is this. A few years ago I heard that a CCD would have to be the size of a football field to have equal performance with your eyes. Even our best films completely fail compared to our eyes when it comes to light sensitivity. There are lots of websites out there that do machine sight via back propergation or genetic alg (see mit) but personaly I feel that machine sight would work better if we could uses organic eyes and even better organic optic nerves. Dosn't that sound gross?
      -James

    7. Re:Bionic Eye by Jeff+Fohl · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the information James. Very interesting. So, if we expand the definition of "vision" to mean the entire system of eyeball, optic nerve, and brain processes, we could accurately say that we have 3D vision? If not, how would you define 3D vision?

  4. radio waves? by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, I hope that radio signal is encrypted or keyed to the individual.. what if two of these folks stand right next to each other?? What if they walk near a radio transmitter, do their eyes go haywire??

    Also, how do they know that animal trials were successful??

    1. Re:radio waves? by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the article: Tests in animals have been successful, and the team would now like to test the device in a small group of about five people.

    2. Re:radio waves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, how do they know that animal trials were successful??

      I saw on TV about the first eye implants.. they considered the animal trails "successful" when everything looked like they expected (ie. the eye didn't get infected, or reject the chip, or whatever). They didn't know whether it was actually working at that point.

    3. Re:radio waves? by jcsehak · · Score: 2

      what if two of these folks stand right next to each other??

      The article says the range is about 25 millimeters. So they would have to be french kissing with their eyeballs to create this kind of problem. Sounds like a non-issue for all but the extremely kinky.

      --

      c-hack.com |
    4. Re:radio waves? by bhsx · · Score: 3, Informative

      The question was how do we know the animal tests were successful; not whether or not they were. For example, was an other-wise blind dog able to cross a street or handle a maze without 'feeling' his way through, bumping into walls?

      --
      put the what in the where?
    5. Re:radio waves? by Alien+Being · · Score: 2

      What if they look into each other's eyes? Will they undergo a personality exchange like Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd?

    6. Re:radio waves? by Scaebor · · Score: 2, Informative
      Also, how do they know that animal trials were successful??
      judging by the ultra-low resolution provided by these "eyes," the tests with animals probably consisted of something akin to providing a high-contrast, moving image (for instance a black square moving around a white field) and seeing if the animals responded to it(perhaps by moving their heads to follow the object's movement).
      --
      "Hey brother Christian with your high and mighty errand / your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying"
    7. Re:radio waves? by jetmarc · · Score: 1

      So, when you have sex you put on the glasses to your partner :-) Whole new opions..

  5. Even though its 10X10 by thelinuxking · · Score: 1

    The example picture shown in the article is barely recognizable. If I hadn't been shown the source image, I would NEVER been able to figure out what the output image was supposed to be...

    Oh well, its sorta like playing Atari on a B&W TV, I guess...

    1. Re:Even though its 10X10 by shird · · Score: 1

      Actually, I didn't think it was too bad. Its probably a bit easier to recognise when it is moving. ie the pixels will pick up and represent different real world points, and the brain may be able to 'piece' together the parts. It is probably enough to recognise the difference between a person or a pole, and to be able to avoid it when walking down the street. Certainly not a complete replacement for vision, but its better than nothing and can only get better with time.

      --
      I.O.U One Sig.
    2. Re:Even though its 10X10 by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2

      The problem is that they used a close up of face to pixelate. There so much detail and so much psychological baggage associated with faces that is pretty poor example. I would think more distant objects would be easier to distinguish especially with the proper video processing.

      These are not really replacements for the eye, just aides like a walking stick or a seeing eye-dog. Even at 100x100 the patient would still be legally blind and have no real peripheral vision.

    3. Re:Even though its 10X10 by OzRoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This would still be a huge improvement over total blindness.

      You also have to remember that the brain is extremely flexable and it will be able to learn to recognise shapes even at this low resolution. You would learn to cope very well. You just wouldn't be able to read probably.

      You are used to seeing things at a normal human resolution. Imagine you are a hawk with the ability to see a mouse 100 meters below you. You are then shown human eyesite. You wouldn't be able to recognise anything either. But you would adapt.

    4. Re:Even though its 10X10 by Fyz · · Score: 0

      so when they develop the ultra-high resolution version, do you think I could see Pluto in my back garden? Okay, maybe that's stretching it, but seriously, would the brain be able to adapt to a higher standard than it was created for?

    5. Re:Even though its 10X10 by gorilla · · Score: 2
      Even at 100x100 the patient would still be legally blind and have no real peripheral vision.

      Which doesn't negate it's value. If you are legally blind, then any improvement in your vision is valuable, even if it still leaves you legally blind.

    6. Re:Even though its 10X10 by RegularFry · · Score: 1

      Definitely. Neural nets can be astonishingly flexible. It may need to be implanted when the user is very young, though.

      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
  6. Worse than pop-ups by Longinus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just imagine if your bionic eyes get hacked and you spend 24/7 looking a banner ad burned into your silicon retina.

    1. Re:Worse than pop-ups by Greenrider · · Score: 2

      Or imagine your eyes get hacked by a Slashdot troll and you have to look at a certain goat-related image 24/7...

  7. Boggles the Mind! by __aadhrk6380 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Something like this, if it works, is awesome! To lose your sight, and then regain it? Just like the VISA commercial, priceless!

    The use of interfacing devices to intercept neural signals from the brain is incredible! It has already been done (to an extent) aurally. Rush Limbaugh totally lost his hearing, yet benefitted from an implant (cochlear).

    As to what it could be, and where it could go? Who cares? If I was on the receiving end, I sure wouldn't be paying too much attention to the options!

    I would just be looking at my family and being thankful for the chance to do it!

    1. Re:Boggles the Mind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just like the VISA commercial, priceless!

      You fucking idiot, it's Mastercard that does the priceless ads.

    2. Re:Boggles the Mind! by __aadhrk6380 · · Score: 1

      And your reply, is...Priceless!

    3. Re:Boggles the Mind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking idiot, it's Mastercard that does the priceless ads.

      Goes to show you how well those ads are working.

  8. How many FPS ? by Vertigo01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article fails to mention how many frames per second (if that's the appropriate term) this technology would deliver... even 10x10 pixels would be helpful if delivered at 30 - 40 FPS, but almost worse than useless if delivered at 2 FPS...

    1. Re:How many FPS ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      good question

      Also, I have read in the recent past that the arguments over what exactly was the average framerate of eyesight was offtopic simply because unlike CRT's the eye sees in a very non-symmetric way sorta like a non-horizontal interlacing. The 'frame rate' is both an average of what is sent and another average of what is processed. Considering that the majority of eye site is actually processed as pattern recognition and memory, then it could be argued without knowing for certain that said pattern recognition is both a curse and a blessing. (curse for how it can cause us to see things wrong, as well as it most likely 'slows' down the processing and wavelength range interpretation)

    2. Re:How many FPS ? by Scott+Baio · · Score: 1, Insightful
      NTSC television broadcasts are at 30 fps, whereas most motion pictures are filmed and shown at 16 fps. This is why many videos made from filmed movies actually contain the same content on almost every pair of frames. Broadcasts that were originally shot on video (like, for instance, "Charles in Charge"), contain original content on all 30 frames each second.

      It's quite a bargain to buy videos and DVDs of you favorite old TV shows, like "Happy Days," and "Joanie Loves Chachi," considering that you get two episodes per tape, with all those frames of unique content for a little less than you'd pay for a theatrical movie released to video.

    3. Re:How many FPS ? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1, Redundant

      It probably doesn't work that way at all (as frames). Your eyes certainly don't.

    4. Re:How many FPS ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last figure I heard was ~90rpm to make a fan spin static. When this happens that means it's moving exactly as fast as your instantaious vision.

    5. Re:How many FPS ? by stuffman64 · · Score: 2

      Actually, motion pictures are shot at 24fps, not the 16fps as you stated. If movies were shot at 16fps, the flicker from the projectors would drive you insane. Also, NTSC video signals (i.e., standard U.S. TV broadcasts) are interlaced, providing 60 fields per second (a field is a half-frame, composed of every other line). A projector like in the movies is non-interlaced, meaning it displays a full frame at a time. The advantage to an interlaced signal is that they are perceived to be much smoother in terms of motion, at the cost of signal precision.

      My guess is that this system runs ~10fps, but because you are directly stimulating the retina over a broad area (10x10 pixels for the entire image, so the individual pixels are made of relatively large areas of retina compared to standard vision), most likely it wouldn't matter too much. These people probably are just happy they get to see again after being blind thier whole lives; I don't think you will get many complaints that the image is not optimal. It is not likely that someone will brag, "Hey, my retina chip can render Quake III at 10fps!"

      --
      --- At my sig, unleash hell.
    6. Re:How many FPS ? by stux · · Score: 2

      Most motion pictures are filmed at 24 fps

      The projector in the cinema flashes every frame twice, for an illusion of 48fps

      Some newer projects flash 3 times for 72 frames per second.

      When film content is digitized and transferred to DVD it is typically slowed to 23.976 fps which can be trivial frame doubled up to 30/1.001 fps (which is the true NTSC rate). For PAL they just speed it up a few percent to 25% in most cases.

      --

      ---
      Live Long & Prosper \\//_
      CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
      Jedi & Last *-fytr
    7. Re:How many FPS ? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2


      Picky, picky. I bet totally blind people would prefer 2 FPS over 0 FPS...

    8. Re:How many FPS ? by RegularFry · · Score: 1

      If the signal is being transmitted by radio, that heavily implies that it's serialised, and the easiest way to serialise an image is frame by frame. Without reading the article, that's why I'd guess that there is a base frame rate here. Of course, the Nyquist frequency of a conductive electrode in the eye is going to be an order of magnitude higher than the persistence of a rod or cone in the retina would be designed for, and that's before the signal hits the processing in the optic nerve.

      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
  9. The real question is.. by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    how good the pr0n is at 10x10.

    Currently the technology is only able to transmit a 10 x 10 pixel image

    1. Re:The real question is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Braille interface (fingers) is better for pr0n.

  10. Other Article Mentioned by instinctdesign · · Score: 4, Informative

    The other bionic eye alluded to in the title is this article from Wired and its accompanying Slashdot post. Excellent read if you missed it.

    (And no, I don't need the karma, its stuck on... "yahoo, you're not 100% useless 'round here" or something...) :P

    --
    forma3
  11. Sex for the Ugly by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 5, Funny

    Speech for the Deaf, Sight for the Blind, now all we need is Sex for the Ugly and I'll be all set.

    1. Re:Sex for the Ugly by Longinus · · Score: 1

      Gee, I really needed to see that story linked to one more time! Almost every news site I read regulary has posted about that study over the past week or so. Is it really that astounding or interesting? Let it rest, people.

    2. Re:Sex for the Ugly by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is I actually didn't think about linking to that story until after I had written the sentence.

    3. Re:Sex for the Ugly by thelinuxking · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually "Sight for the Blind" is a step backward in progress from making the goal of "Sex for the Ugly" possible.

    4. Re:Sex for the Ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I want to know is, does it make a cool bleeping noises when used, like the one Steve Austin had.

    5. Re:Sex for the Ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're doctors, not miracle workers

    6. Re:Sex for the Ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One would think if the ugly realized how ugly they were and lowered their standards they might have sex with other ugly people. Thank god this doesn't happen all that often or there would be a whole lot more ugly people in the world.

    7. Re:Sex for the Ugly by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Well, in this case it's only 10 by 10 pixels. Most of us aren't that ugly.

  12. If only... by l33t-gu3lph1t3 · · Score: 1

    A blind man could hook those bionic eyes up to one of those Sony Glasstron sunglass-tv units playing some Spice Channel ;-)

    --
    ------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
  13. No, that would be rather pointless by thelinuxking · · Score: 1

    From the article:
    "We broadcast data into the body using radio waves," he explained. "It's like a radio station that only has a range of 25 millimetres."

    This means that in order to pick up the signals, they would have to use some device that picks up signal within 25 millimetres of the glasses. This means that they have two choices

    1.Go to a lot of trouble to get much less than a centimeter from the person and get a 10x10 b&w image

    OR

    2.Get sorta near person, and just look with own eyes and get infinite resolution, full color image that can be instantly viewed.

    1. Re:No, that would be rather pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      25mm isn't "a lot less than a centimetre, in fact, its 2.5cm.
      So glasses with a range of 25mm would transmit with a radius of 25mm.

    2. Re:No, that would be rather pointless by thelinuxking · · Score: 1

      Still, I think the second way for the FBI to see what the guy is seeing would be the better choice ;)

    3. Re:No, that would be rather pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is a bit more complicated than that, I have to say. Data bieng transmitted over a PCs motherboard can be intercepted given the right (and very expensive) hardware. The FBI is just one of the agencies that can potentially have access to Echelon hardware. Of course, that little transmitter isn't going to transmit anything that can be intercepted from a very far distance. I certianly wouldn't rule out the possibility of intercepting the signal from, say, across an average street, with perfect line of sight.

      Of course, if you can receive the image from the glasses, you can almost certianly see the person as well.

      Given the ammount of money and resources the FBI, CIA and NSA have, it becomes an acedemic issue: the question changes from "Is it possible?" to "Why not try?", and it will probably be accompolished for the sheer reason "Because they can."

      Either way, the prospect of having ones' own vision Van Eck phreaked is unnerving at best.

    4. Re:No, that would be rather pointless by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      I'm more interested in transmitting to the device.

      A parabolic dish should be sufficient for two-way communication. (Return via eye muscles.)

      And, yes, anti-troll moderator, this has serious potential to be abused.

      Interesting what an EMP blast would do, though...

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
  14. Yeah... by thelinuxking · · Score: 2, Funny

    Think of all the legible text can be viewed in a grayscale 10x10 image. Wouldn't be much use unless the product happened to be one letter long.

    1. Re:Yeah... by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      It's a three-dimensional image. Don't forget time. :) Finally, animation whose most useful application doesn't involve a male's fifth appendage.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
  15. The future of the bionic eye by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Manufacturers clamor for market dominance in the bionic eye market, and come up with a hodgepodge of several dozen incompatible technologies. The Justice Department demands the ability to remotely observe what people are looking at, and pressures manufacturers to secretly include key escrow technologies in their circuitry. Copyright-holding corporations realize that the junction between the optic nerve and the CCD chip is ripe for targeting, since you can effectively close off the "analog hole" by sticking an agent in there that enforces copyrights on all visual images passing through. They lobby intensively and as a result the government steps in and mandates that within X years all vision should be digital and incorporate some approved form of copy-protection. This is hailed by the corporate press as a "victory for the consumer" because of the expected abundance of pay-per-see content, even though the early adopters get struck blind by the mandated copy protection- making their eyes worthless, although they are still prized by a small minority for their ability to boot up free operating systems.

    Manufacturers continue to trip over each other in their efforts to corner the market, and come up with even more incompatible formats. Consumers who purchase the systems find that the left eye from manufacturer X (about to go out of business) and right eye from manufacturer Y (about to go out of business) both want to be in charge of what you're looking at. Getting different components to cooperate is next to impossible. When one eye breaks, you have to get them both replaced because everything is incompatible with everything else and every model is discontinued or obsoleted as soon as it comes out. People start to write scathing reviews about how the industry and Congress both need to get their act together.

    Meanwhile, consumers look at this fiasco and rightly conclude that their eyes are working fine, and that there is no reason to throw them out.

    1. Re:The future of the bionic eye by Emexies · · Score: 1

      Have you been reading too much Transmetropolitan again?

  16. Radio waves? by Kizzle · · Score: 3, Funny

    Damn now I have to get a fcc license for my eyes.

  17. brain tech by sstory · · Score: 2, Interesting
    the real story here is the experience and technology the eye problem will give neurology. Interacting with the eye and vision structures of the brain is the easiest way to get a foothold in neuro-cybernetics, and such problems are widespread enough to provide researchers much study.

    Maybe, in the end, giving machines human-quality visual capabiliy will be a result of using machines to return the same to impaired humans.

  18. A problem... by rde · · Score: 1

    Of course, if you're relying on technology for your sight, you run the serious risk of going blind because of the EMP if you're beside a nuclear bomb when it goes off.

    1. Re:A problem... by khold · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but also, if you are close enough to a nuke, you also have to worry about losing your vision because your are dead too.

      --
      rm -rf sig
    2. Re:A problem... by jimmy_dean · · Score: 1

      lol! An excellent observation. ;)

      --
      -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
    3. Re:A problem... by Tarison · · Score: 1

      If you're relying on this technology for your sight, the chances are you're ALREADY blind. It's probably the least of your worries at that point, anyway.

    4. Re:A problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that if "you're beside a nuclear bomb when it goes off" that resulting EMP should be the least of your worries.

    5. Re:A problem... by Jerf · · Score: 2

      As opposed to the problem of going blind because you happened to be looking in the direction of the bomb when it went off?

  19. it doesnt seem all that great by 3th3rn3t · · Score: 1

    well, call me weird but the image doesnt seem all that great to me. sure, its better than nothing, but its absolutely nothing.
    i doubt it that this 10x10 range will be any good. the idea is pretty good thought and with proper R&D it can develop to someting helpful ...

  20. A question by brandonsr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, this is a serious question so don't mod me down.

    Would it be possible, with this new eye, for colorblind people to see color? Or is this still more along the lines of gene therapy.

    1. Re:A question by jkeyes · · Score: 1

      If the technology got super duper duper duper better and you could have full vision with color than yes but don't look for it happening soon.

    2. Re:A question by Scaebor · · Score: 1

      For an adult colorblind his entire life, would the visual cortex even be capable of seeing color or would it be like an adult who has been blind his entire life suddenly being able to see? In the case of the blind person, he would be incapable of seeing well because of the lack of development in the unused portions of the brain that handle sight.

      --
      "Hey brother Christian with your high and mighty errand / your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying"
    3. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We have two main types of photoreceptors called rods and cones. They are called rods and cones because of their shapes. These cells are located in a layer at the back of the eye called the retina. Rods are used to see in very dim light and only show the world to us in black and white. This is why you see only black and white when you are outside in the evening or in a dimly lit room. The other type of photoreceptors, the cones, allow us to see colors. They are not as sensitive as the rods so they only work in bright light.

      If this new technology replaces the functionality of the retina (including the functionality of the rods and cones), then yes people that were colorblind before would be able to see color. Instead of having genetically defective cones, the silicon would be sending the correct signals.


      This of course assumes the silicon duplicates the electrical impulses produced by the cones.

    4. Re:A question by olman · · Score: 2

      Maybe. But until the implant technology becomes radically better, you don't want it. Having red/green blind "natural" vision beats the living crap out of having kind-of-working artificial vision. For now, it has nowhere near the dynamic range or ability to re-adjust on the fly of the real thing. As I recall, red-green blindness is caused by simply not having the right kind of cells in your retina. Or you have them, but they're sensitive to wrong wavelengths. So an artificial retina should fix it, but it's a different story whether your brain could process the new information unless the device was installed at birth.

      Ditto for hearing implants. As long as you have any hearing of your own, it's better to make do with hearing aid. The technology's just not mature enough, not yet.

    5. Re:A question by tengwar · · Score: 1

      Colourblind people actually do see colour! There's a few people who can't see any colour at all - this is achromatopia (Oliver Sacks has a book on this, Island of the Colorblind, I think). That's rare. The problem normally called colour blindness in English (Daltonism in some other languages) is more of a failure to match colours, than to distinguish them. As an example - in the UK we have green traffic lights that are what I would think of as "blue-green", which I find very easy to distinguish from the amber and red lights. In Belgium, they often use "red-green" for the green lights, which I find harder to distinguish. I can't see any similarity between the two greens, and I have to learn to call them the same colour - on the other hand, I can see a distinction in shade between the "red-green" and red traffic lights, but they aren't something I would naturally group separately.

    6. Re:A question by brandonsr · · Score: 1

      Actually, Achromatopsia is what I have. Full Blown, completely colorblind. Which is the genetic disorder described in Island of the Colorblind. But, I also have the sensitivity to light, which is sometimes overlooked by people reading the book. And is unfortunately a much bigger problem than being completely colorblind.

  21. nerve technology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the sounds of the article it seems the technology for transmitting the digital signal to the nervous system works similar to the other Australian invention - the Bionic ear.
    I think patentwise, and for large companies etc. the technology will be kept under tight control for ethical reasons. I'm fairly sure the ear people are a private company owned by a university.....?

  22. Remember "$6M Man" by Kotukunui · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just as long as the bionic eye doesn't make that "do-doo-do-doot" funny noise everytime you use it. That would drive me nuts.

  23. My Vision by aashenfe · · Score: 1

    Now What they need is a camera small enough to fit in your Iris. Get rid of that extra radio equipment since the chip can connect directly to the camera. Ad some cool night vision and Infared capabilities, maybe zoom. Then make it comparably priced as laser treatment. Only then I will get surgery for my myopia.

    1. Re:My Vision by messiertom · · Score: 1

      Stop it, now you're making me wish I was blind and had a time machine.

  24. Scramjets, Bionic Eyes and Ears, Nicole Kidman... by mtec · · Score: 1

    What's in the freakin' water down under!?

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  25. Will the eye have DRM? by mtec · · Score: 1

    Wait'll the RIAA gets a-hold o' this!

    Someone gives you a taped copy of Friends and you can't see it...

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  26. Re:Scramjets, Bionic Eyes and Ears, Nicole Kidman. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Heh, I am from down under - I have wondered what they put in the water here many times. You missed out the refugee crisis, supporting 'the war on terror' and then whinging when iraq cancels our wheat exports, the teleportation device using lasers and elle mcpherson.

  27. Seeing the world in pixels... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would be very unnerving. If you had vision restored through one of these artificial eyes, and the focus of the mind goes back to the vision (because the modern lifestyle is predominantly visual), would it start to affect your mind after a while like some kind of Matrix effect? Would the person start dreaming in pixels? @_@

    1. Re:Seeing the world in pixels... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already do dream in pixels. Luckily I have a hi-res 800x600 monitor!

  28. Who figured out the interface protocol by Raiford · · Score: 1
    Hey the optic nerve doesn't exactly accept RS-232 or any of the IEEE standards so how did the researchers figure out how and what signals should be provided as input to the optic nerve and how the interface architecture was suppose to even look like? Is the interface between the optic nerve and a healthy retina( with the rods and cones as sensors) no different than just any other electrical circuit ?

    --
    "player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
    1. Re:Who figured out the interface protocol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm can you whack me up with an rgb ocular implant with built in ethernet so I can feed porn directly onto my eyes.

    2. Re:Who figured out the interface protocol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say that they drop a tap into a working optic nerve, given a series of high-contrast test images, and determine what is 'seen' in the sense of what signals are passed. If they repeat it long enough, they should pick up a pattern (even if only a computer'll recognize it) and then they just have to duplicate the pattern.

    3. Re:Who figured out the interface protocol by JatTDB · · Score: 2

      If I remember right, there was a Slashdot article about 2-2.5 years ago where they were doing just that with cats. Had a series of images showing what they reconstructed with data from the optic nerve, directly compared with the same image as viewed by a camera strapped to the cat's head. The images from the nerve were blocky, but the general shapes involved were recognizable. Guess I finally have an answer to my "hmm...wonder when they'll have enough data collected to insert artificial image data into the nerve?" question.

      --
      "That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
  29. Woot! Ray Charles doesn't have to change his look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They come in two classes, bright chrome shades and cheap sunglasses

  30. What Animal Trials? by rapidweather · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Also, how do they know that animal trials were successful??
    let's see (no pun intended): blind dogs kinda bump into stuff as they move about the yard. If they see squirrels in the nearby trees, you'll quickly know it by the barking and chasing. Squirrels down on the ground: I had a dog that would plot the path the squirrel would take to the nearest tree, and head right to that spot, and presto, he gets there just as the squirrel does (Then the fun begins). Has to see to do all that. With bionic eyes, same results in the dog vs squirrel tests. Now onto Cats: My cat chases another cat out of the yard. He's quite a distance away. I open the door, and call "Kitty-Cat!" and he turns to look at me and runs right up to me pronto. (Big cats, if worked with a bit, almost act like dogs) If he couldn't see, he would need further verbal guidance to reach my location. Again, with bionic eyes, same results in the calling the cat routine.

  31. Interesting by mgeneral · · Score: 1, Informative

    Above everything else, the advancements science is making on vision is amazing. However poor that 10x10 image is, in time will get better. Personally, I was more intrigued by this story:
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.09/vision.ht ml
    where the scientist is actually inserting probes in the brain to stimulate the nuerons that produce the image we need to see with. It sounds as though he is having better success, assuming that the patient was able to drive a car (albeit limited) after the operation. That 10x10 image doesn't leave me feeling that the patient could get in a car and drive, much less distinguish what he's looking at.

    --

    Goals are deceptive - the unaimed arrow never misses.
    1. Re:Interesting by aWalrus · · Score: 1
      The most important difference between that article and this one is that this approach uses the artificial retina artifact instead of the big setup in that other technique. I think this would allow higher miniaturization and eventually lead to the integration of the camera and processing equipment in a single implant (much easier to "install" than the neural implant).


      --

      --
      Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
  32. Oh! Yes Elle! by mtec · · Score: 1

    That wonderful, wonderful water!

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  33. Re:Boggles the Mind! [NITPICK] by The+Pi-Guy · · Score: 1

    MasterCard commercial. Ok. Mod me down. :)

    --j

  34. I seem to remember... by DJPsychoChild · · Score: 1
    I seem to remember reading something like this in a story once. The main character was blind, and underwent surgery (didn't get into many details) that gave him back sight. He had never seen anything before, and in the end went insane from all the colors etc. etc. and gauged his eyes out. Things that he had known from touch & sound weren't what he imagined...

    Just something to think about.

    --
    CODITO, ERGO SUM: I Code, therefore I am.
  35. Finally get to see your wife... by Scaebor · · Score: 1

    ...and never get near her again now that you know what she really looks like.

    --
    "Hey brother Christian with your high and mighty errand / your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying"
  36. Yes! by Thaidog · · Score: 1

    I need this!

    --

    ||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.

  37. T*R*O*L*L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG, that wasn't even any good. Not funny. The premise, so factually incorrect as to be obvious even to the most ignorant, isn't even drawing flies to the bones of that horse you're whipping. I spit -- *ptew!* -- on your post!

  38. Nerds demand more bionic parts! by Monev · · Score: 0

    I am waiting for the bionic ass and the bionic wang.

    1. Re:Nerds demand more bionic parts! by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 1

      Haha. If you got a bionic wang, you'd be like the captain/scientist guy from the movie Space Truckers, who had the lab accident and rebuilt most of his own body. Just imagine.. you have a girl over, because you've told her that you can get going and last for twelve hours of non-stop action, but because your wang is still in beta testing, it fails and the woman goes to get her own bionic wang, called the VibroPleaser 3000. Do you really want a bionic wang now?

      --
      Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
  39. letting the Blind see, not really worth it... by wantedman · · Score: 1

    Unfortaintly, Sight isn't that cool if you haven't had it in a long while. Cornia transplant paitents usually end up commiting suicide...

    Basically, the person has use a cain in his life for so long, they cannot function with just eyesight. There are classes to use a cain, but there isn't really a support group to help people who are trying to get off the cain.

    They might not be able to judge depth perception, which is a pretty important for movement :-P

    And plus, the world isn't a great place to look at if your not use to it. Peeling paint, ugly people, dead grass, people being mean to eachother. So depression is something that is common in people who get this transplant....

    of course, if you've just lost your eyesight in an accident, then getting new eyesight will be great. or at least better than learning brail :-P

    1. Re:letting the Blind see, not really worth it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      cain n

      a possession

      a spear

      The first-born son of Adam and Eve

      acronym Conflict Archive on the Internet

      cane n

      A bamboo (Arundinaria gigantea) native to the southeast United States, having long stiff stems and often forming canebrakes

      A rod used for flogging.

      A stick used as an aid in walking or carried as an accessory

      A rod used for flogging the bejesus out of ignorant slashdotters.

    2. Re:letting the Blind see, not really worth it... by wantedman · · Score: 1

      Just because my spelling sucks, doesn't mean I'm ignorant, it was actually explaned to me like this.... "You've shown me that you were smart, thats why you've always got B+'s in English" It really sucked that after passing Advanced Composition in HS, to realize that I couldn't spell saw correctly all the time :)

  40. Gratuitous Sci-Fi reference - Bab 5 by T-Kir · · Score: 3, Funny

    Reminds me of Babylon 5 when G'Kar has his bionic eye, especially when he can take it out and still see from it.

    (Sheriden and Delenn - honeymoon night)

    Londo: (something along the lines of) It almost makes you wish you could peek in and see what they are doing.

    (G'Kar looks distracted)

    Londo: G'Kar, where is the prosthetic eye that Dr. Franklin made for you?

    (G'kar is smiling)

    (Scene changes to show the eye on a table looking towards the honeymoon bed)

    --
    Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
  41. Evil! Be warned! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damnable eyes from Bene Tlielax!

  42. Re:Scramjets, Bionic Eyes and Ears, Nicole Kidman. by mtec · · Score: 1

    So using lasers and Elle Mcpherson you can teleport things?

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  43. Why is this a troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll my arse. Sounds quite plausible. Ever heard of tempest technology? People can what's on a CRT (televisions or monitors) from blocks away.

  44. "Invisible" bionic eye by ocp · · Score: 1

    Optobionics has been around for a while and have been implanting silicon chips on the back of the eye on human patients. The patients were blinded by retinitis pigmentosa.

    The chip interfaces directly with the the remaining cells in the retina so there's no need for external glasses or receivers. Although the person with the implant cannot perceive color, the resolution is good enough to distinguish shapes. The chip itself is has an array of photodiodes with a technology similar to solar cells.

  45. Visa? by robmered · · Score: 1
    I just heard the death wail of a thousand marketers...

    Good riddance to 'em.

  46. Re:Scramjets, Bionic Eyes and Ears, Nicole Kidman. by evilhayama · · Score: 1

    So now us australians can teleport Elle Macpherson to our room, but can only see her at 10x10 resolution? that's pretty cruel...

  47. Re:Scramjets, Bionic Eyes and Ears, Nicole Kidman. by waferbuster · · Score: 1

    Besides the obligatory "sharks with frickin' laser beams...?" talk about a leading question... sheesh!

    --
    I'm an individual! Just like everyone else!
  48. surprised at lack of kudos to us aussies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Im not an Australian scientist, but I do believe that Australian science is leading the world in many many areas.


    I for one would like to give applause to Australian scientists and scientific organisations, in particular the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Reasearch Organisation.


    Keep up the good work!

  49. Implants... by Professor+Farnsworth · · Score: 1
    This is truly amazing! However, I think we should be pushing for similar technologies that would allow people with normal vision to have signals fed directly to the visual system. This is one of the holy grails of virtual reality, but who really wants to trade their otherwise perfect eyesight just to have the equipment necessary for truly immersive VR?

    Of course, I'd be happy if I could afford an Apple Cinema HD display....

  50. Better Technology by mactom · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hi,

    We (IMS-CHIPS) work on something similar. But in our case, the pixels/photodiodes are included on the chip, which is implanted. No need for a separate camera. Very simple and elegant.

    Have a look:

    http://134.2.120.19/index_en.html

    http://www.ims-chips.de/home.php3?id=d0822

  51. Yet Another Sci-fi Reference (TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chew: I just do eyes. Just - just eyes. Just genetic design. Just eyes.

    And...

    Roy Batty: If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes.

  52. i watched in discovery channel. by john_uy · · Score: 1

    as i was scrolling along, i saw a show in discovery channel about the eye.

    there is this new very simple device, that is still under clinical testing that allows the replacement of the retina with the use of an organic material.

    no chips!

    maybe someone could elaborate on this. :)

    --
    Live your life each day as if it was your last.
  53. Future bionic eyes with a military purpose? by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 1

    I wonder.. in the future, will bionic eyes ever go beyond giving sight to the blind? If these bionic eyes actually worked, why wouldn't the military want to get them, and modify them and further their purposes to include heat detection, range finding, night vision, etc, sort of like the eye of a Terminator?

    --
    Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
  54. Just read the same news at CNN by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 2

    CNN is reporting on the same story, only they have the tagline that "Blind people are driving the bionic-eye market"

  55. Hate to respond to trolls, but... by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

    I've always wanted to say this where someone would believe me. (It's amazing how many people would rather bury their heads in the sand.)

    It's not about the government not being interested in you or I right now, it's about the future. The more police powers the government has, the more likely those powers are to be abused. The farther technology progresses (without simultaneous attention to personal security), the easier it becomes for the government to abuse those powers.

    We have proof that the US government cannot self-regulate itself sufficiently to prevent abuse of its power, no matter how temporarily it occurs.

    For example, the Alien and Sedition Acts were blatant(though not flagrant) violations of personal freedoms. Take the time to read the Alien Act, and tell me the government isn't doing exactly what it made legal, right now. And notice that both laws were later struck down as unconstitutional. If you look it up, you'll find that at least one very prominent politician (a member of an opposition party) was jailed for violating the Sedition act.

    For more proof, just dig deeply into the activities of the FBI during the thirties.

    The government is perfectly capable of regulating itself, but only after it has made a mistake. It has no mechanism in place (aside from the common-law nature of Congress, but political parties took care of that "problem") to prevent mistakes before they occur. Hence the Alien and Sedition Acts. Hence the DMCA. Hence the Patriot Act.

    I've heard it mentioned, and I'll repeat it: Laws and acts by the Legislative and Executive branches of government need to be reviewed by the other two branches. Not necessarily before they take effect, but soon after. (If they had to be reviewed before they took effect, "red tape" would become a "red swamp." McCarthy would have loved it.)

    --
    What's this Submit thingy do?
    1. Re:Hate to respond to trolls, but... by cscx · · Score: 1

      Hence the DMCA.

      I never really gave this much thought, but would laws such as the DMCA apply if you dialed into an ISP in say, Canada?

  56. It runs Linux! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I know some people working on getting the implant talking to PLEB (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~pleb/).

    On-topic and pro-linux. I'm certain this is going to get modded up!

  57. One word: Velma by pyrote · · Score: 1

    Finally a reason Velma can't tell the difference between a 10 foot monster and scooby.
    now where did I put those glasses...

    --
    THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.