BrainPort Allows People To Reclaim Damaged Senses

Karma Star writes "There is a news article on a new device called a BrainPort, which is special device that is worn like a helmet, with a strip of tape containing an array of 144 microelectrodes hanging off the headset which is placed on the tongue. The BrainPort then sends signals to the tongue which are then picked up by the brain, allowing the user to regain otherwise lost sensory input. More at the NY Times (soul stealing subscription required)."

Comments

Good technology looking for a home?

[FluffyPanda]

It seems like a great breakthrough for the poor woman who lost her sense of balance, but the suggested uses?

Pilots confused by foggy conditions, in which the horizon disappears, can right their aircraft by monitoring sensations on the tongue or trunk. Surgeons can feel on their tongues the tip of a probe inside a patient's body, enabling precise movements

Sounds to me like an able bodied pilot or surgeon could just use the senses they already use. The pilot could still use the visual readout of the artificial horizon for example.

Is this really destined for common usage?

Sensory Prosthetics

[delta_avi_delta]

I hope that this leads the way to sensory prosthetics. People are looking into ways to directly control prosthetics using signals from the brain, but a major difficulty for people with prosthetics is how to use a limb that has no sensory output whatsoever. Anyone who has ever had their leg "fall asleep" on them, and tried to walk it off will begin to appreciate the difficulties involved.

Re:NYT Article Text

[lisaparratt]

By tapping a cane, a blind person perceives a step, a curb or a puddle of water but is not aware of any sensation in the hand; feeling is experienced at the tip of the cane. IME, the reverse is also true - when riding my motorbike, I'm not aware of pushing on the handlebars, shifting weight etc - I just think where I want it to go and it does.

Re:Already exists

[Anonymous Coward]

re: Licking 9V batteries...I'm glad someone else does this also. Unfortunately, that habit developed decades ago in my teen years has always been reliable and this past year I tested a garage door remote battery (very small) by popping it in my mouth. I guess the amperage was a bit different because I immediately regretted it as my world lit up (I guess my pupils dialated a bunch) and my mouth convulsed violently.
Holy crap...I will never ever test a battery that way again.

the IP perspective

[wes33]

Maybe this is great work, but it bothers me that the professor can spin off a company to market this product which the university has patented.

Bear in mind that the good professor was supported by public money to do this research and the Univ. of Wisconsin similarly is state funded.

It seems just plain obvious to me that this research belongs to those who paid for it -- the public.

The idea that a university takes public money to use as venture capital with intent to profit is repulsive. Of course, it happens all the time in those branches of academe which connect to marketable products. But that doesn't make it right.

Re:the IP perspective

[ChrisMaple]

So, you're saying that the university (i.e. the state) should risk taxpayer's money by setting up a manufacturing facility for this product? Or that noone should ever develop it? Or that professors should never do practical research?

"The public" as a whole does not benefit from this product - individuals do. Likewise, the public as a whole does not manufacture it, sell it, buy it, repair it, or improve it.

I don't know what the policies of the University of Wisconsin are, but it's likely they'll be getting some royalty payments out of this since they have a patent.

Yes, there is a problem with the state taking money to run schools (except military academies), but objecting to commercial research is unrealistic.

Re:the IP perspective

[wes33]

"So, you're saying that the university (i.e. the state) should risk taxpayer's money by setting up a manufacturing facility for this product? Or that noone should ever develop it? Or that professors should never do practical research?"

None of the above. The research is public and should be freely available to anybody. If somebody wants to make a product and sell it, fine. No patent protection on publically funded research.

I think companies could make money this way if their product is good enough and, of course, they can sell "support" (sound familiar).

Eyes in the back of the head?

[phyruxus]

Take someone who has normal vision. Put a camera on them facing backwards and hook it up via brainport.

Will the brain be able to interpret the forward and rearward vision simultaneously? Would a person be able to develop 360' vision? Even if not, I'd still like to have my own "rear view mirror" :)

There could be a huge market in wedgie prevention. :)