Need A New Retina? Look No Further

wap writes "Restoring sight to the blind is a Bibical miracle, a sign of divine powers. Now it is being tested at the Boston Retinal Implant Project, with some very limited success, according to Technology Review. They only have fifteen electrodes implanted, but it's a start. Great quotes: 'The eye doesn't like stuff inside it, that's why it doesn't have a zipper.' Will artificial eyes and retinal replacements someday be as good as good human eyes?"

Comments

As good???

[Vo0k]

Heh, they will be 100 times better.
Extended spectrum, nightvision, antiblinder, zoom, the possiblities are unlimited!

Re:As good???

[hcdejong]

For some values of 'better'. Sure, you can add cool features to the eye, but it'll be a while before you can improve on the original function of the eye: CCD technology has a long way to go before it even comes close to the picture quality (resolution, dynamic range, absence of noise and artefacts) of the human eye.

Re:As good???

[dmayle]

5 months later it'll be deemed that our eye sight can be tapped under the PATRIOT act and similar.

printf("%s",szDeity) that should have been modded insightful. It actually makes me think of Minority Report, and how it's illegal not to have your own eyeballs. This sort of stuff will happen if we let it...

Re:As good???

[wowbagger]

Actually, the raw data you get from a CCD is better than the raw data you would get from the back of the human retina. The retinal is covered with blood vessels, has a big hole in it (the blind spot), had a great deal of noise (phosphene activity).

However, the nerves just after the retina, plus the optic nerve, plus the visual cortex, do a HELL of a lot of signal processing - removing the fixed imperfections like the blind spot and the blood vessels, using the dithering created by the small jittering of the eye to increase spatial resolution, averaging out the random phosphene activity.

IF you could get the same spatial resolution coupled into the retina, you could improve vision. However, that is a BIG IF - getting the millions of electrodes into the eye and coupled to the nerve cells, giving the correct voltage levels and firing patterns, without destroying the nerves by releasing metal ions or overvoltaging them, without provoking an immune response - quite a task.

Now, the question that I have is the plasticity of the brain - consider this: imagine the above difficulties are resolved. Now, instead of using a CCD array that approximates human normal vision by using RGB, what if you made an imaging element that generated RYGCBM - instead of three response curves you use six to increase the color-space resolution. Now, normally our brains learn to parse the basically RGBY data from the eye (the rods just return luminance data). Suddenly, the brain is getting a different set of signals. Is the adult brain plastic enough to learn to process this data at all? What about a child's brain?

Re:As good???

[strike2867]

Is the adult brain plastic enough to learn to process this data at all? What about a child's brain?

You're forgeting that the brain is also getting the image upside down. And then it flips it for you. There was an experiment a while back where a guy wore a pair of glasses which turned everything upside down for him. I think he wore them for like 2 weeks. If I remember correctly, after a while his brain just flipped the image back for him. When he took the glasses off, his brain had to adjust again.

Re:As good???

[strike2867]

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/8589845 31.Ns.r.html.

Minority Report and the Future

[KageMonkey]

Will artificial eyes and retinal replacements someday be as good as good human eyes?

Reminds me of the scene where Tom Cruise went to get his eyes replaced in the Minority Report. Nevertheless, the question that "will be as good as someday?" is somewhat pointless, because we all know that as technology advances, will ALWAYS be as good as in the future. Unless we blow ourselves up, I am certain that we will have eye implants that gives humans super-vision, as well as being able to see-through walls, amongst other goodies. The better quesion is, how long will it take for technology to get there.

You mean DIGITAL zoom

[caitsith01]

999X DIGITAL ZOOM! Actually creates data out of nothing WHILE YOU ARE ZOOMING! Who needs those fancy optics and lenses and whotnot?! DIGITAL is part of the WORLD OF TOMORROW!

Seriously, though, without an extra lens how could it be anything but 'digital zoom' (i.e. 'magnification')?

On the other hand, most people nowadays appear to be dumb enough to buy anything so long as it is digital or contains the prefix i- or e-, so maybe we can just market these as "eYes : now with DIGITAL zoom."

Re:You mean DIGITAL zoom

[LostCluster]

There seems to be a segment of the marketplace that loves the word "digital" thinking it must mean "better technology" which is true most of the time, but there are some things that are just meant to be done in analog sound amplification and image magnification being two of the biggest examples.

Re:You mean DIGITAL zoom

[dmayle]

without an extra lens how could it be anything but 'digital zoom'

Easy, a higher resolution sensor. I'f you're looking at 1280x960 picture at 640x480 (50%), and you suddenly DIGITAL ZOOM to 1280x960, you didn't need a lense, and you weren't manufacturing new information. No one is saying that this will be ready next year, but in 50 year's time, it will definitely be possible.

15% of the worlds blind

[Anonymous Coward]

could be cured for the cost of 1 Nuclear submarine, but as we are not serious about curing blindness we would rather have multiple subs and lots of blind people

http://www.mercyships.org

Re:15% of the worlds blind

[JaredOfEuropa]

could be cured for the cost of 1 Nuclear submarine, but as we are not serious about curing blindness we would rather have multiple subs and lots of blind people

Similarly, we could cure hunger and disease for the price of 3 nuclear subs. But next year we'd have to pay even more because all our free food aid has bankrupted the few remaining farmers in Africa (this does actually happen by the way). Then after a few years, when we say 'enough is enough' and ask them to grow their own damn food for a change, they come to our countries instead and take ours. We will not be able to stop them because we have swapped all our submarines for food.

I'm kidding of course. My point is that the defense of our citizens has a higher priority than curing the world's blind, and that one submarine is deemed necessary for the defense.

Re:15% of the worlds blind

[pavon]

Ironic that you should link to a charity in a post which infers that government spending is the solution to our problems, because everytime I hear someone saying that we could improve the world if only everyone in the country gave so much more in taxes, I wonder "Then why aren't you"? If progressives were to give just a small portion of thier income to charity they could achieve all the things that they want the government to do.

And don't tell me you don't have the money. Growing up in a family of seven, living off of less than $70k in the 90's, my parents always gave at least 10% to charity. We weren't poor but I'm sure most slashdotters are much better off than we were. From the very first allowence I recieved, I have given at least 10% of my income to charity. When I was only getting $10/month as a high schooler in 1997, when I was living off ramen in college, I still gave. Because my parents taught me that no matter how bad off you are, there is someone who needs the money more than you. A church here has managed to put on a huge outreach event once a year, in addition to their normal day to day support. This is only a medium size church, and it is one of the less wealth churches in the city, and yet it manages to achieve things that the huge mega churches wouldn't dream of doing.

I am not saying any of this to brag, but to point out that you can make a difference, even if you aren't rich. So to all progressive that want to improve people's lives, before you impose your morals on the entire country, before you create another inept government beurocracy - ask yourself what you are doing to improve the world yourself. I know some of you are already, but I know just as many who are not. Worse, some are even being a drain on society - of thier own choice, not because of the evils of society, as much as they would like to think otherwise. There are some things that are systematic problems and need a change of policy to improve the dynamics of our economic system. But social programs are do not fall into this catagory, and if you are not giving money to these programs yourself already, then you have no right to force your fellow countrymen to do so instead.

Re:Legal issues with artificial eyes...

[mrjb]

Good point, I don't think that should've been modded down. Those glasses transfer the image to the artificial retina via wireless. Of course the signal need not be very strong, but could possibly be picked up by others.

it already exists

[Errtu76]

It's called respect, and you don't need any glasses for that.

Progress,,,?

[julesh]

I'm sure I remember hearing about a similar experiment about 10 years ago. They'd connected a 5x5 array of electrodes to a patient's optical nerves, and he could see vaguely defined objects. So this is exactly how much progress...?

Re:I must be a Luddite...

[nwbvt]

" I might consider it if say it was to restore something I'd lost completely (like my sight)"

Well thats sort of what they are for.
Thats like me saying I cannot imagine using crutches, ever, though I might consider them if I had broken my leg.

Leave it to /. to make research restoring sight to the blind an issue primarily about turning human beings into a race of cyborgs.

Oops, forgot to mention...

[xenicson]

that it will help people that are born blind in the future... as they could then use this new technology to train their visual cortex. As for people already born blind, I'm not sure that this will never allow them to see, just that they will probably not be able to get the same level of results as someone that once had sight.

Re:Outstanding

[DanielJosphXhan]

I hope they someday find a cure for that sort of hopeless optimism.

Look at the record of history: the more we know about disease, the more diseases we discover. The more illnesses we cure, the more develop. Even things that we thought were just part of the aging process are now classified as disease.

"Common sense" health modification - not

[hab136]

Dude, I don't think it will be automatic. Remember, circumcision has been around for thousands of years, and even this common sense health modification doesn't get done on all newborn males automatically.

Common sense isn't. Circumcision is not only unecessary, but risky and detrimental to one's health.

The only reason to circumcise is religous - there is no medical reason, and there are good medical reasons not to.

There is no extra care required to be uncircumcised - basically, leave it alone, wash the outside (as you would circumcised).

http://www.cirp.org/

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/

Re:I must be a Luddite...

[cellocgw]

You must be joking: people turned off by implants? Several thousand rich plastic surgeons (and rich strip club owners) would disagree.
So it matters a lot just what implant and why.
FWIW, I'm one of many who finds a stylish pair of eyeglasses can greatly enhance the sexual attractiveness of the wearer. Not strictly an implant, but there you go.