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???

[catwh0re]

I'm imaginging bad webcam quality eyes. Then people quoting back and forth, "oh you got crap logitech eyes, you should have bought iSight eyes"....

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

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???

[cs02rm0]

Aren't people using retinas for developing biometric identification? I wonder what the consequences of this would be ...DoS a system with a bunch of people with the same retinal scans?

I know with the iris they can measure the amount it constantly expands and contracts by to verify it's not a contact lens or similar. I presume though when they reach the stage of replacing the whole eye they'd be able to even fake that.

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???

[Eric604]

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

Yes! That's a briliant idea! When the adult brain is not plastic enough, why not use children brains as a coprocessor? The only problem is where to leave it.. Perhaps artificially expand the skull to hold an extra smaller brain?

Re:As good???

[Anonymous Coward]

No need. Remember that color perception is not done as absolutes, since different lighting conditions would wildly change the perceived color. Rather, it's done as a matter of differences between the object and its surroundings: it's an edge detection effect, and this is documented in all sorts of visual illusions and neurological studies since the 1960's when Jerry Lettvin at MIT started putting electrodes on single neurons.

Adding another 3 colors would expand the edge handling required from 3 colors, and the resulting 2+1 = 3 differentials, to 5+4+3+2+1= 15 differentials to resolve. Forget it, it's too complex to easily manage and doesn't really buy you much additional resolution of real objects that isn't present in RGB.

Re:As good???

[Lonewolf666]

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).

On the other hand, the human eye has pretty good resolution in the point of best vision, something like an arc minute. At the same time, it offers motion detection over a rather large arc. This allows you to notice something happening at the edge of your field of vision.
Let us assume for a moment that you want to emulate these features with a "standard" CCD that has a uniform resolution over its surface. The field of vision shall be 90 degrees horizontally. You would then need a resolution of 90*60 by (let's assume the traditional 4:3 ratio) 90*45 pixels.
That would be a 5400x4050 pixel CCD. AFAIK such CCDs do exist, but at a size that would not fit into a human eye.

Considering noise, most of today's cameras still need a flash or a floodlight to make decent pictures at night. So add some low-light amplification to your CCD, if you want to compete with the human eye ;-)

Bottom line:
Technology has to improve some more before it can give better results than a human eye from an eyeball-sized camera.

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.

Human Augmentation

[Devar]

I'd love to keep one eye, probably my 'good' eye, after testing to see which is the best, and modify the other to give retinal overlay data. You could look at an object and it would draw an overlay and data on it. Also, the ability to turn this overlay on or off! How about zoom, or freeze frame capabilites all without having your eyes look any different than they would naturally.
I know it's a long way off, but that kind of visual enhancement would be awesome. And expensive. And I want it. :)

Re:Human Augmentation

[vofka]

Why replace your real eye to do this if it is perfectly healthy? Take a look at EyeTap. This research, mainly by Professor Steve Mann at the University of Toronto has the potential to do everything you describe, and much more besides!

FLABBBLALBBL

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah Chew, if you could only see what I've seen with your eyes

More info

[caitsith01]

Some info about the various types of bionic eyes currently being built can be found on Wired.

Brain implant anyone?

Where's Captain Cyborg?

[leeroybrown]

15 electrodes implanted in someone's boday and not a sign of Kevin Warwick. Perhaps we'll get some actual research with scientific basis for a change.

I must be a Luddite...

[CountBrass]

But I simply cannot imagine having any of this kind of enhancement: ever. I might consider it if say it was to restore something I'd lost completely (like my sight) but as an enhancement? No I don't think so. But then perhaps I'm a luddite: I haven't seriously considered laser eye surgery, partly because it's risky (however small) but mostly because my current eyeballs + glasses work just fine.

And as a humorous aside: how long do you think it would be before scumware companies worked out how to spam you new implants? "I ploughed into that part of school children because I was distracted by the advert for cheap viagra my retinaly implants I had just received".

Re:I must be a Luddite...

[vofka]

The night vision problem is caused by the way the surgery is performed, and it depends on which type of surgery is carried out. The problem that is caused is a "starburst" effect around the point where the front of the eye is opened and re-sealed, or around the points where modifications have been made to the eye.

Usually these effects wear off after a couple of weeks, and some people never experience them at all, but for a minority of patients, they are left with a permanent "starburst" effect, which is worst in any high-contrast light-on-dark situation, such as driving at night.

The problem is serious enough that some governments have banned any person who has had laser eye surgery from driving at all - which is annoying for those who had their vision corrected to bring it into the range acceptable for driving in the first place!

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.

Re:I must be a Luddite...

[Anonymous Coward]

It just corrects flaws in the lenses, which should make all types of vision better. Anyone? I'm considering it, that's why I'm interested.


It doesn't "correct flaws in the lenses". It has no effect on the eye's anatomical part called a"lens". Typical near/far sightedness isn't caused by any geometric flaws, but rather by the eye's inability to refocus the "baseline" position of the lens due to skeletal changes forcing geometry changes of the eyeball. Astigmatism is due to corneal flaw in shape but the cornea is still perfect in terms of surface. Contrary to some myths, it is not due to muscle problems, it's that the lens isn't anywhere it needs to be where the muscles can do some good. Laser surgery cuts away at the cornea to change the refractivity of it so that the lens' accomodation range is back in the active area for the optical system consisting of cornea, lens, retina (the same way contact lenses and glasses work).

These cuts cause flaws. In addition, the contrast and reflectivity of the cornea is adversely affected. It is still much better than the older techniques. What some people forget is that laser surgery is still surgery. It is still butchery, its just that the laser is relatively more precise and allows smaller scale cuts than a knife.

Re:I must be a Luddite...

[operagost]

You're almost right - the problem is most noticeable at night because the iris opens to let in more light, and the flaw in the retina which was once blocked by the iris is now exposed. Certain eye shapes are more or less susceptible to this effect.

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.

Gives a whole new meaning to...

[mrjb]

"I can't see a thing without my glasses!"

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.

Re:You mean DIGITAL zoom

[The_K4]

Yes there IS a "digital" base for all things (and your examples were good ones) HOWEVER there unless the digital technology you are using sufficiently advanced then the analog process might produce better results. For example for a long time digital cameras and printeres were not able to produce pictures as good as film/photo paper becasue the digital technology was unable to get the resolution as high. So for so applications analog is currently still better then digital (however that set is shrinking).

Remember that the f/2 is the minimum sampling rate to be able to caputer a signal, in most cases that will NOT provide all the spectral info needed. Think of a sign wave, if you hit it just right you would see a flat line with f/2 sampling. Often for GOOD reproduction you need to sample more then 2x withing the period of the wave, often times 10x is much better.

I don't see what the big deal is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, I don't. =)

Can I get these in "Beer Goggles" mode?

[HBI]

Being able to look at ugly chicks as if they were beautiful would be a gift beyond price.

Re:Can I get these in "Beer Goggles" mode?

[stemcell]

Oh come on, this is /. - being able to look at inflatable chicks as it they were beautiful would be a start......

Re:Can I get these in "Beer Goggles" mode?

[terrencefw]

What? You want the beer goggles without the beer? What's wrong with you!

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.

Legal issues with artificial eyes...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with having a camera for an eye is that if they got good, they most certainly would cause enromous legal issues. You could conceivably record your own sight, which would run afoul of various copyright, privacy, and wire-tap laws in the US and abroad. More so if you broadcast them, or if security/access control was in place.

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.

Missing Zoom function

[waynemcdougall]

Lister: Any problems?
Kryten: Well, just one or two. In fact I've compiled a little list if you'll indulge me. Now then, uh, my optical system doesn't appear to have a zoom function.
Lister: No, human eyes don't have a zoom.
Kryten: Well then, how do you bring a small object into sharp focus?
Lister: Well, you just move your head closer to the object.
Kryten: I see. Move your head ... closer, hmm, to the object. All right, okay. Well, what about other optical effects, like split screen, slow motion, Quantel(tm)?
Lister: No. We don't have them.
Kryten: You don't have them -- just the zoom? Hmm. Well, no, that's fine, that's great, no, no, that's really great, that's great.

About time too!

[manavendra]

This is very good news! My brother had been hurt in an accident has a child and has limited vision in one eye. The retina of his eye was damaged and several thousand dollars and hundreds of trips to clinics and hospitals later, we have been where we started!

This is early days yet, I know, but it offers some hope.

Screw Artificial Eyes

[Anonymous Coward]

I want chainsaw hands!

Example of overlay data

[zonix]

1) Serve the public trust
2) Protect the innocent
3) Uphold the law
4) Secret

z

it already exists

[Errtu76]

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

Re:it already exists

[ifwm]

Nope. I respect plenty of ugly chicks. They're still ugly though.

Re:Get infravision, Win the JREF Prize...

[pjt33]

set up the test to your advantage and viola!

I knew I should have taken music lessons in school.

Please wont somebody think of the blind diabetics?

[Colourspace]

This is great news for me, I recently had an eye scan which showed the first signs of retinal damage after years of being diabetic... They reckon I have about ten years lefy so these guys need to get it up to at least JPEG resolution by then so I can still jack into my laptop and get my pr0n.. ;)

Only for people who could see at some time

[Jeff Kelly]

Just some clarification.

These devices won't restore eyesight to people who were born blind. Only those who, at one time in their life, actually could see will profit from such technical replacements.

When you are born you are nearly blind. It takes four to six years for the visual cortex to develop fully. After the age of six this development stops and thats the end of it.

If you are born blind then the cortex will not be trained and no magic eye surgery will restore your vision, because after the age of six the visual cortex will no longer adapt to the new situation.

Even if your eyes are restored to 20/20 vision you will not see a thing because your vision center doesn't know how to interpret the pictures. So these kinds of surgery will only help people which went blind and not those who were born blind. (Still cool stuff)

BTW. It is the same with deafness.

Re:Only for people who could see at some time

[gordo3000]

but then why not take that to the next level, if this technology gets far enough along, lets say by 2020, then if a child is born blind and we have good ways of testing it, we could immediately implant the eyes and train the visual cortex from as early as possible so the child gains at least some sight(of course, I`m assuming you can`t do this surgery on a new born but probably can before the age of 6).

Anyways, if they can do heart surgery on newborns, I think they could quickly learn to pull this off and it would be an even greater gift by helping to eliminate many forms of blindness.

Re:Only for people who could see at some time

[jstave]

I read an article (I believe it was in Science News) indicating that blind-from-birth people actually used their visual cortex to process sounds. Basically we use it to build up our model of the world around us.

I'm not saying it could be retrained to process visual information after a lifetime of other use, I just thought its cool how the brain can effectively rewire itself. Kinda like detaching the speakers from your computer and having the sound card automatically start processing graphics (or something)

Re:Only for people who could see at some time

[xenicson]

Actually, it depends on where the blindness occurs... there are several different "kinds" of blindness... problems with the visual cortex, problems with the optic nerve, and problems with the actual eye structure (though I'm sure there are many more)... it is entirely possible for someone to be born with a working visual cortex and optic nerve, but broken eyes that this would be able to help.
BTW, Why is this just making news here, now? I saw a spot on CNN probably a year ago or more about a guy that was blind, but had stuff implanted into his brain and a little camera to allow him to see... It's still really cool, but it isn't really new.

Re:Only for people who could see at some time

[misterpies]

There's actually an article (subscription) on this in this week's edition of Nature. It's about a guy who was blind from birth but - at the age of 52 - received a corneal graft that enabled him to see for the first time.

The psychologists were dumbfounded to discover that he could read the time on clocks and even the titles of books straight away, without any learning. It turned out that he had a "blind" watch (a clock without a cover over the face, so he could tell the time from feeling the positions of the fingers), and at school he'd been taught to recognise capital letters by their shape. Somehow this shape information was transferred from touch into sight ("cross-modal transfer").

However, when it came to objects that were out of his tactile knowledge, he was unable to respond to them properly - e.g. he had no way of estimating the distance of any object further away than the length of his arm, and pictures and photographs were just meaningless blobs of colour.

Re:Only for people who could see at some time

[gmhowell]

You are correct. This is why my deaf-blind wife, after reading for too long complains about 'tired eyes'. It's not the eyes that are tired, it's the visual cortex.

Of course, she skews things a bit, as she was born with both vision and hearing.

Re:Only for people who could see at some time

[Jeff Kelly]

"Uh... How do you know? If they're just developing this technology, then no one has ever benefitted from it before and you can't be sure whether or not the brain can cope."

I know because there are other conditions which, to some extend, lead to the same phenomenon. If you are suffering from strabismus or nystagmus since birth the same could happen to you. If you suffer from strabismus then you get diplopic images since right and left eye are not parallel.

The brain cannot cope with this kind of double vision because it cannot combine the two images (from the left and right eye) to form a threedimensional image.

So the brain ignores the image from the weaker of the two eyes and the part of the visual cortex, which processes the images from this eye will no longer be used.

This leads to bad vision which cannot be corrected with glasses or lasik since its the visual cortex who cannot correctly process the data.

If this remains untreated to the age of six or seven you will never recover your vision. Due to strabismus and nystagmus the vision of my right eye is only at 5% so i am a good example of that myself.

A popular treatment for this is to use eyepatches. You disable perception from the better eye and force the brain to use the weaker one so that this part of the visual cortex will also be trained. But this treatment has to start when you are still young for it to have any effect.

HTH

Jeff

p.s. i hope i have explaned it correctly since i am not a native speaker (Had to look up some words in the dictionary)

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...?

Need A New Retina? Look No Further

[caronc]

Of course I won't... I need a new retina!!

useful but not great

[cyberwitz]

6 months ago I had cataract sugery and an interocular implant. The implant is fantastic, it took me from functionaly blind, in that eye, to pretty usable vision in the eye.

There is absolutely no equal to the organic material of the eye, though. As good as the implant is, it's still like looking at a bad reprint of a picture.

When it comes to the human body, third party products are decent if you can't get the real thing. But, they really aren't (and probably won't be) better.

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.

Eye of Newt

[jbeaupre]

People have tinkered like this for a long time. My favorite, going back to 1997, is where they combined silicon and eye of newt. No kidding! http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/99/07/003.h tml

How are you going to power these things?

[tokenhillbilly]

I mean what happens if your on the road and forget your charger? You wake up in the morning and all you see is a little battery low indicator. Since you got your eyes last year, non of the stores carry a charger for your obsolete eyes.

Re:useful but not great - use a tooth

[openSoar]

Apparently it's possible to replace a damaged cornea with one of your own teeth - I remember seeing a TV show about a guy who did it - I can't find that story but here's another example.

"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/

A few retinal implant details

[skkellymit]

This implant is meant for people suffering from retinitis pigmentosa and macular degeneration. It is not meant as a replacement for functional eyes. :)

It will likely not be as good as normal vision for a *very* long time, if ever; it is meant to return some mobility and possibly face and detail recognition to people who have gone blind by retinal degeneration.

Furthermore, this is not a "cure" for these diseases. The rods and cones still die, but are "replaced" by an external camera and some implanted circuits and electrodes to stimulate the retinal nerves which form the optic nerve.

In response to those asking whether this is new: it's not. Most of the groups working on artificial vision (retinal implants, cortical implants, optic nerve implants) have been at it for well over a decade. What is new is the development by some of these groups of actual implantable devices, as shown in the Technology Review article. Previous experiments typically involved electrodes inserted into the eye of a blind volunteer for a short time, with all of the electronics remaining outside.

Other artificial vision & nerve regen projects

[maynard]

This Eurekalert article discusses a new technique using chemical messengers to lead nerve growth toward a specific site. While originally intended for spinal regrowth after severe trauma, it (and the many other research projects online the same line) would appear relevant to this artificial vision project. They're trying to save the optical nerve so they can stimulate from the eye to the brain. If they could regrow nerve tissue care in surgical placement of the implant during eye surgery might be of less concern.

Also, PBS has a series Innovation - Life, inspired where one of the episodes discusses another artificial vision procedure consisting of a direct ocular brain implant currently in human trials. The program follows a patient who has the surgical procedure done and then her recuperation and initial testing of the implant. Most interesting. They also show another group who is trying a different kind of brain implant, but who haven't yet made it to human trials.

Between nerve / brain cell regrowth and implant research ongoing we will likely see amazing cures for formerly untreatable injuries and illnesses within our lifetimes. It's pretty amazing to see the beginnings of Bionic Man type stuff actually happen in my lifetime. --M

Re:Quote

[narcc]

Who was it that said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"?

Arthur C. Clarke (Famous author of: 2001, Childhoods End, Songs of Distant Earth, and many others)

The quote you're discribing the third of Clarkes Three Laws[1] first published in an essay titled "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination", in Profiles of the Future

There is also a corollary to the third law that states any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced (Gregory Benford [2] first proposed this in Foundation's Fear[3])

Hope that Helps.

References:
[1] Clarke's Three Laws, Wikipedia.org
[2] Gregory Benford, Wikipedia.org
[3] Foundation's Fear, Wikipedia.org

Sight to Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

The Boston Foundation for Sight has restored good sight to over 600 people with cornea problems using a plastic liquid filled jumbo lens. find them at bostonsight.org