Artificial Retinas Bring Vision Back To The Blind

Patters writes "Researchers from the University of California and the Doheny Eye Institute have successfully implanted a tiny electronic eye implant with a video camera mounted on a pair of sunglasses into 6 patients, allowing them to detect light and motion. The implant is a 4-by-4 grid of electrodes which connects to damaged photoreceptors (rods and cones) on the patient's retina. It works by stimulating the photoreceptors, transmitting signals through the optic nerve to the brain. The implant only works on patients with degenerated rods and cones, and is named after Argus, the Greek god which had 100 eyes. If the implants continue to be a success, the artificial retinas could be available to the public within the next 3 years."

Comments

Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[Eunuch]

Transhumanism is like libertarianism--an obvious solution invisible to the mainstream. Hey, I don't want blind spots. I consider them to make me disabled. And to fix that I want completely artificial eyes.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[MyLongNickName]

You'll need an artificial brain as well. Most of what you "see" is really brain processing. Simply increasing the resolution of the camera won't help. 360 vision sounds neat, but your brain won't be able to cope without making other concessions.

Granted, being able to focus on something 200 yards away the size of a needle would be awesome. But don't think this is a panacea for everyone.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'll find that if you modify your eyes to transmit information that your natural eyes did, your brain will not be able to process that additional information. You might get it to work if you implanted them in an infant, but that would be kind of rough having to buy new eyes frequently during periods of rapid growth.

Artificial eyes that simply modify the incoming image might work (for example you could represent light outside of the visible spectrum by a distinctive color).

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[Anonymous Coward]

You *are* disabled, but not because of your blind spot... You have a deep-seated emotional problem, that's all. You realize that the universe is 15 billion yers old, and will probably last just as long again? The unique combination of chemicals that makes you *you* is never going to happen ever again. Your life span is like a nanosecond in a day, and you are wasting time cutting off your penis and belly-aching about stuff that never stopped Helen Keller or Stephen Hawking.

Just get off your ass (I assume (heh) you didn't cut that off as well) and do something.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[MyLongNickName]

This would be worthy of an insightful mod, if you had the guts to log in when you posted. It is true that folks like to look at external reason for their inadequacies instead of looking in the mirror (pun unintentional). However, when the poster isn't willing to put one's own karma on the line, it just doesn't have the same effect.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[commodoresloat]

Transhumanism is like libertarianism

You mean it's an unworkable fantasy dreamed up by conservatives who smoke pot?

Sounds about right to me.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[Anonymous Coward]

Guts? Laughable. Post your real name, phone number and SS number. Then I'll do the same. Gimme a break. Just look at the content of the post, and mod appropriately. You are looking for an external reason to not like my argument, when the problem is yours, probably emotional as well....

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[khrtt]

I think you underestimating the ability of the brain to adapt to different input. Besides you don't necessarily need implants to have 360 degree vision, or a long zoom lens - it could be a helmet-mounted camera/monitor system. Implants would just make it more portable.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[fbjon]

Actually, the blind spots are an artifact of the physical construction of the human eye. It's where your nerves leave the eyeball.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[MyLongNickName]

I think you misunerstand my post. Look at folks who have never had sight. Studies have shown that other parts of the brain begin to use the "dead space" that would have been dedicated to vison. I don't think it is unreasonale to expect that you COULD get super sight.... but something else would suffer as a result.

The brain is a very amazing creation. However, it isn;t sitting around with 90% unused capacity as is the common old wives tail. Make vision better, something else must suffer.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[Valar]

The funny thing about libertarians is that they are dismissed by both sides of the political spectrum.

Libertarian: I think people ought to be able to do anything with their personal lives, just as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
Republican: OMG?! What if they smoke drugs and make gay-like?
Libertarian: Companies are just lots of people. So they ought to be able to do just about anything that doesn't hurt anyone else.
Democrat: OMG?! They'll enslave us all!!!!! (ignoring the important clause about do no evil)

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[rzbx]

There are people that have lost portions of their brain and still function normally. Also, as long as there is incoming information the mind will work the brain for the connections. The simple fact is the brain can be thought of like a muscle. How you use it determines its strengths.
Its a big space to put stuff.

Consider this, we have mass storage devices that can hold up to terabytes. The brain is larger compared to some of these devices and vastly more complicated. To say that other things will suffer is really both an obvious, but misunderstood connection. The ability of our brain to manage more is debatable, but the time dedicated to any particular area could be measurable. Taking more time to learn to type will result in the ability to type faster for example. The question also becomes, is it the eye that encourages better vision or the brain/mind? An increase in the information coming into the brain does not necessarily mean one is aware of it all. If you ignore it, then why should your brain care to wire it strongly? It is what we aware of, or concious of, that determines the brain structure. What we call conciousness is the mind. Monkeys that can control a mechanical arm with electrodes wired into the brain is possible. All that suffers is that which is not being used.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[The Only Druid]

No, some of the blind spots are due to the location of the fovea. You have a HUGE "blindspot" however that corresponds to the roughly 200 degrees that amount to the back of your head (its more than 180 because you actually cant see directly to the left or right while looking straight ahead).

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[The Only Druid]

"You might get it to work if you implanted them in an infant, but that would be kind of rough having to buy new eyes frequently during periods of rapid growth."

No, you'd never have to buy new ones: newborns arrive with eyeballs the same size as an adult. That's why children seem to have such large eyes: their skull is smaller than an adult, but they have the same size eyes. The only large-scale change to your eyes over the years is a slight shift in flexibility of different tissues (resulting in various vision issues), excluding serious degenerative issues.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[fbjon]

Well, but all lens systems have a blind spot where the lens is, at least. It's not the blind spot that is "visible" inside the field of vision, or do you mean there are more than that one?

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[betelgeuse-4]

"... just as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else."

That restriction prohibits a hell of a lot of things, or at least produces huge grey areas. For example, smoking just about anything might hurt someone else unless the fumes are completely contained (practically impossible). So does libertarianism allow smoking?

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[Joe Tie.]

Your life span is like a nanosecond in a day, and you are wasting time cutting off your penis and belly-aching about stuff that never stopped Helen Keller or Stephen Hawking.

And you're wasting time belly-aching, and drawing very unrealistic conclusions about his life. Helen Keller and Stephen Hawking are human, I doubt either of them went through life without a complaint about trivial matters. Would you argue that neither of them ever did anything with their lives because they woke up one day and got cross over the weather or an annoying fly buzzing in their ear?

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[glyph42]

(its more than 180 because you actually cant see directly to the left or right while looking straight ahead).
You have made some incorrect assumptions about the construction of the eye. It is not a pinhole camera. Furthermore, there are two eyes, installed at slightly different angles. For example, I have 210 degrees of peripheral vision, measured at a vision lab. So that's only 150 degrees of blind spot :)

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[dabigpaybackski]

I want stainless steel eyeballs with glowing red irises so that people will think I'm a cyborg and stop trying to befriend me.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[Anonymous Coward]

Artificial eyes that simply modify the incoming image might work (for example you could represent light outside of the visible spectrum by a distinctive color).

Or just have a switch to select normal eyes, IR eyes, nightvision eyes... just like Splinter Cell!

Seriously, though, that would rock.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[jonadab]

> Actually, the blind spots are an artifact of the physical construction of
> the human eye. It's where your nerves leave the eyeball.

*Those* blind spots are only actually blind spots as long as you keep your gaze focused in one spot without looking around -- which you generally don't do, except when you're very sleepy, drugged, or deliberatly focusing your vision on a particular thing that's stationary (and normally when you focus your vision on one thing, it's a thing in motion, so this doesn't come into play then). Otherwise, those "blind" spots have almost no impact on your vision. As your gaze passes over something, it theoretically blinks out for an instant (if it's the right combination of small enough and far enough away), in that your retina is not perceiving it for that instant, but as your cerebral cortex processes and intereprets the informatin it is receiving, it smoothes that over automatically and fills in the blanks for you. The retinal blind spot makes a fascinating "optical illusion" science demo at places like COSI, but as long as you don't stare straight ahead like a zombie, it presents no very significant problem to your vision in practice.

However, the other poster was talking about the rather larger blind spots that result from the limits on your peripheral vision (both horizontally and vertically): in a nutshell, you don't normally see behind your head. Since your head (and whole body) don't generally move *nearly* as often as your eyes, this larger blind area has a much more significant impact on your visual perception.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[The Only Druid]

No, you have 210 degrees if you look all the way to either side, alternatingly. I quite specifically stated that it was only when looking straight ahead. You're just mistaken.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[EEproms_Galore]

yes very true The same happens with language, if someone is never introduced to language skills before the age of four (4) they have little if any language skills for life. This is because the brain isnt a static organic device it adapts based on the enviromantal variables given to it. Another good example are PDA users, if you use a PDA for extended periods of time, to store information you normally have to remember, your brain adapts and reduces the resources given to lay down new memories for long term storage. So there will never be a cure for long term blindness, unless the inplants are either introduced at a young age, or are added as sight deprecates due to desease or age.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[fbjon]

Yes, the problem with the blind spots is that information from around the need to be used. That's why it's important to look around a bit when driving, it's entirely possible that a car or a child could be hiding right in your blind spot, making them invisible to you, if you're unlucky. Especially when standing still at traffic lights, when you're just staring straight ahead at the lights.

Now, getting 360 degree vision would require more than one lens to start with, so it's not really a viable option. Moreover, does anyone have any idea how to map a sphere of vision onto a retina? Resolution would suffer immensely, and perspective distortions would require a total unlearning of what you vision sense has learned so far.

Re:Obvious transhuman consequences left out

[Dyolf Knip]

Or we come up with a way to keep the ... hmmm ... 'plastic' nature of the childhood brain continuing through life.

Now that would be cool! Figure that in it's first four 4 years, a newborn manages to _simultaneously_ develop fine motor skills, not only learn a language but learn the very concept of language, develop a intuitive understanding of the physics of the universe, learn how to make use of the veritable deluge of information coming through their senses, and begin to develop human social skills. It's an impressive achievement, to say the least. Imagine if we could continue that same ability to learn into adulthood.

Long-term blindness (or deafness, regrown limbs, whatever) wouldn't be problem because an adult would be able to 'relearn' any lost sensation as if from scratch.

external camera based systems

[Anonymous Coward]

There's systems where the camera is external (not implanted in the eye .. and there's a wire or wireless comm link that stimulates teh optic nerve or relevant part of the brain .. just googled couldnt find it .. anyone else knows about where that research went?

Oh yeah! 16 pixels is really going to rock you!

[Anonymous Coward]

At the time my macular degeneration is complete and I have to buy synthetic vision, I want a resolution of at least 1024x768 both in visible and infrared light.

This is just pathetic.

Re:Oh yeah! 16 pixels is really going to rock you!

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Open a math textbook, and check if "16 pixels > 0 pixels" is a true statement for integers.

2. Look up the definition of "prototype."

4 x 4?

[blue_adept]

wow, and I thought 640 x 480 was low resolution.

Re:4 x 4?

[madaxe42]

Ah, but imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

Re:4 x 4?

[Valar]

I think it probably has to do with a combination of problems. Firstly, the requirements for electronics suitible for implant are fairly high. I mean, a digital camera ccd would probably just burn your face continously. Unpleasant. And, if this is powered by bioelectrics, then it as to meet low power requirements.

Issue two might be even bigger. I am no neuroscientist, but I bet the time it takes the brain to 'learn' the signal is a steeply positive function of resolution.

Re:4 x 4?

[game kid]

I would have done the TI-83 96x64 you insensitive clod joke here, but (aside from the necessary "oh, wait" part) my dad's left eye is even worse. The doctors removed it completely, and he would have lost the other to its disease had it not been for some special advanced lens- or cornea-replacement or something.

If this could fix it (which it probably won't), I'd take out some loans by now.

Re:4 x 4?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it, I've had it. Imagine a beowulf cluster of people kicking the asses of everyone who posts "imagine a beowulf cluster..."

Ah crap, now I'm the target...

Re:4 x 4?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what the return policy is for dead pixels.

Re:4 x 4?

[Janitha]

Its better than 0 x 0. All devices have to start somewhere, and 4 x 4 seems like a good start. Now just need to shrink, compact, implant, shrink, compact, implant until a whole array is devices. Actually they might just say screw the retina and directly interface with the cable/nerve budle going from eye to brain. Having a VGA in or similar port in the back somewhere in my body would be cool.

I would also like the camera to be equipped with infrared and a thermal imaging device.

Re:4 x 4?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop posting shitty catchphrases to entirely unrelated stories you retard. They aren't fucking funny anymore.

Re:4 x 4?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was a reference to the low resolution, and multiplicity. Although I dare say that'd be over the top of your horribly crippled mind. What's it like having a full frontal lobotomy?

Re:4 x 4?

[ArcCoyote]

Each of our natural retinas produces a raw image that is low resolution (especially away from the very center,) full of dead spots, distorted, and flat.

However, our brain is an amazing signal processor. Our eyes constantly move and refocus, taking in different images that the visual cortex combines into a single detailed three-dimensional field of vision.

I've been blind in my left eye since birth. Yet I can still percieve three dimensions and determine depth and distance perfectly well. The only things that won't work for me are 3d glasses and similar tricks that rely on both eyes seeing different things.

It's entirely possible the brain could turn 4x4 pixels into a rudimentary but usable image.

Re:4 x 4?

[babyblink]

But that's enough to play tic-tac-toe.

Re:4 x 4?

[shimmin]

I've seen a video clip of a person using the implant. He was an older man who had originally been sighted, but had lost his vision several decades ago. An object was placed in front of him on a table, and he proceeded to move his head around in a circular pattern, kind of like a bird doing some sort of mating display. I think this motion multiplied the effective resolution of the device, giving him a better sense of where the object's boundaries were than if he'd held his head still.

After about 20 seconds, he announced, it's a cup, and he was on the verge of tears, and honestly, so was I. Increasing the resolution of the device is just a matter of engineering. The concept works.

Re:4 x 4?

[Spillman]

I've been blind in my left eye since birth also (glaucoma). Aside from a big gaping blind spot, it's not that bad. However, I wonder why scientist types only seem to research on blindness caused by degeneration or other failing parts. What about those of us who have damaged optic nerves? I would give my left nut just be be able to see a tiny amount of light out of my eye.

Re:4 x 4?

[FleaPlus]

However, I wonder why scientist types only seem to research on blindness caused by degeneration or other failing parts. What about those of us who have damaged optic nerves?

There's been research with directly stimulating either the visual cortex or optic nerves, but it hasn't been as successful yet. Hopefully more progress will be made over time. Some links:

http://cortivis.umh.es/overview.htm

http://www.md.ucl.ac.be/gren/mivipresult.html

Re:4 x 4?

[rcs1000]

Tears!

Surely with electronics in his eyes he should be careful. It would be terrible if he short-circuited his artificial retina.

Re:4 x 4?

[Anonymous Coward]

Issue two might be even bigger. I am no neuroscientist, but I bet the time it takes the brain to 'learn' the signal is a steeply positive function of resolution.

The brain doesn't have to learn anything.
It said in the article it stimulates the rods and cones (which send signals the brain already knows) to produce images; it does not stimulate the nerve directly.

Re:4 x 4?

[moranar]

ISTR the real eye works like this too: it doesn't have a great resolution, but makes up for it by taking many different images in a short period of time and "making up" the parts between them. Instead of a big 1600x1200 picture, it would take thousands of small 16x16 pics and build the main image from them. Fascinating stuff.

Re:4 x 4?

[ralphclark]

You mean like this?

Re:4 x 4?

[linoleo]

Hey, don't knock it - you could play tic-tac-toe with one of these babies and still have 7 pixels left for multitasking!

Re:4 x 4?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah crap, now I'm the target...

Imagine a beowulf cluster of asses farting in your general direction

Prying open my third eye

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want to know is if I can have a third eye installed into my forehead. What would that be, triscopic vision?

Re:Wee

[wjsteele]

It's not a dupe... it's for the OTHER eye.

Bill

remember everyone

[UlfGabe]

people blind from birth will not be able to use this to see. Their brains havn't even developed the "code" to interpret the optic nerve signals.

people who have lost eyes, or through macular degeneration, will be able to regain some of their lost visual freedom.

excellent work scientists, keep it up.

Re:remember everyone

[Lane.exe]

You don't think it is possible for their brains to be taught to see as well?

Re:remember everyone

[ejdmoo]

people who have lost eyes, or through macular degeneration, will be able to regain some of their lost visual freedom.

Not if the optic nerve has been severed and they have a prosthetic eye. The retina must still be in place as well.

There is almost no point in having people who have lost one eye do this anyways. Living with one eye is not that bad.

Macular degeneration is where this really counts.

Re:remember everyone

[kebes]

You are absolutely right. Many experiments have shown that if vision is impaired during certain critical developmental periods, then normal vision will never be possible, even if their eyes work perfectly. (The work began with Hubel and Wiesel's work on kittens, for which they received the 1981 Nobel Prize in medicine, but has been extended by many others.) These experiments have even shown that you can limit vision in certain ways (blocking out only one part of a visual field, for instance, or letting them mature in an environment devoid of a particular class of visual cue) and the animal will simply have that part of their visual system undeveloped (while other parts still work).

So there is no way that those born without vision will ever attain what we consider normal vision. That having been said, it may be possible that they can achieve some rudimentary visual capabilities. For instance, they may learn to use the stimulus from a 4X4 grid in order to help them know when objects are approaching, or to better interpret their other senses. It isn't much, but for someone who has been blind their whole life, even some vague visual information (like knowing how bright their surroundings are!) may be helpful. Obviously more research is necessary in order to know if even these limited abilities can be learned later in life.

Re:remember everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

people blind from birth will not be able to use this to see. Their brains havn't even developed the "code" to interpret the optic nerve signals.

Hopefully scientists will be able to find a way of stimulating the areas of the brain to develop this "code".

Then the people blind from birth will be able to sing I can see clearly now my brain has grown.

SCNR.

Re:remember everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind, though, that some of this work is showing that competitive input alters cortical plasticity in fundamental ways, depending on whether the input is simply absent, compared to when there is *some* other input. In some cases, with no visual input, critical or sensitive periods are prolonged.

Re:remember everyone

[BWJones]

OK, so like the other posters have said, there is considerable processing that occurs in the brain. However, most people are not aware of how much visual processing actually occurs in the retina. Hint: it is considerable.

As for the results that Humayan et al are showing to great effect, there are major problems aside from the engineering ones. First off, part of my PhD dissertation was on just this problem of retinal degeneration. It turns out that the implants they are designing are not taking into account some of the most basic issues of biology. Notably that any time you deafferent a CNS system, it remodels. They will have to deal with remodeling and continuously degenerating retina. In order for implants like this to work, we need to arrest retinal remodeling or take advantage of it to enable wiring into bionic or artificial biological circuits.

From an engineering standpoint, traditional electrode grids like this will end up with other problems. Notably, the issue of heating. You don't want to cook your retinas, so the need for very small currents with microelectrodes are what will be necessary. I show one such bionic implant on my blog here.

Re:remember everyone

[Barbarian]

How about having a computer interpret the scene and use the 4x4 field to display direct codes to them? There are 16^2 possible codes with a 4x4 black/white pixel screen (assuming each pixel is either on or off).

Re:remember everyone

[mikael]

Not really. Human vision develops at the early stage, at the same time as we learn to crawl along as infants. There was once a case where some parents tried "accelerate" their kids development, by skipping the crawling stage, and just using a baby bouncer instead. Apparently, the kid never learnt the concepts of "perspective" and "distance". as a consequence, she couldn't understand why objects changed in size.

There was also a guy in a 3rd world country who had cataracts since he was born. Doctors managed to help him see again, but he could only see colours, but not shapes. He still had to touch the object to get the idea of its shape.

There are so many aspects of vision that we have to learn in order to avoid becoming confused: shadows, reflections, texture, shape from shadow, perspective, not forgetting spacial relationships (partially obscured, behind, inside).

Re:remember everyone

[Carewolf]

Actually it is not uncommon for children to skip the crawling stage by themselves. I know I did.

It is not recommended, but not because you loose perspective or distance, but because your will have poorer coordination between arms and legs.

Re:remember everyone

[Dachannien]

One thing that happens during early infant brain development - when the low-level brain facilities for vision are also developing - is the mass culling of synaptic connections. That is, the brain initially grows (during late prenatal development) an abundance of synapses, far more than it needs for normal operation. A large portion of these synapses are removed during early childhood (first two years or so), with learning and experience creating a "survival of the fittest" scheme of determining which synapses to keep and which to lose.

It is almost certain that the excessive culling of synapses in the visual centers of the brain that results from not having any visual stimulus during the first two years of life is irreversible. Possibly the brain could be stimulated to produce new synapses in those areas, but it is likely that the process would cause far more harm than good.

Re:remember everyone

[MidnightBrewer]

I have a visual peculiarity known as double strabismus, and which the doctor told me could have been corrected if I'd been born five years later. He said that, since it is a phenomenon that involves the brain, there is no way to correct it. (I immediately decided to ignore the last part, since deciding something is impossible never gets anything done.)

One of the disadvantages of the whole situation is that one of my retinas is slightly underdeveloped, and that much I believe is not correctable through training or stimulus, at least not with our current level of technology.

Re:remember everyone

[Paraplex]

"Their brains havn't even developed the "code" to interpret the optic nerve signals."

I believe the brain would receive a new signal and would begin to process it as "vision" (whatever that is)
Tests done using a tongue plate which converts video footage into stimulus have, (when used on test subjects - both blind and seeing) begun as an unintelligable tingling sensation on the tongue and ended up as an intuitive sense of "vision" and spacial awareness.

Granted, the brain already has an interface for tongue sensitivity, but I think future tests using this technology on blind from birthers will yeild similar results.

'plex

Re:remember everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad you never learned the difference between LOOSE and LOSE. Maybe you skipped so far ahead, you flew right by a dictionary?

Re:remember everyone

[Caseyscrib]

You bring up an interesting point. It would be awesome if we could utilize unused parts of the brain for computer implants or devices. If we wired an input device up to the brain at an early age, would the human brain be able to learn to use it? Perhaps one day when we better understand how the human brain works, this might be possible. We could learn books by "loading" them into our memory, or look at infrared light/heat via a small camera in our eye, or store 100% accurate digital photographs and video events and recall them at will. It would create endless possibilities.

Re:remember everyone

[Zareste]

It's true. You can send the brain any kind of perceptible signal and if there's a pattern to it, the brain will catch on and start figuring out what it means.
If, somehow, your brain were re-wired so you'd control your arm with the section that once controlled your eye, you'd start to get the hang of moving the arm with the new circuitry.

We do have to learn to use our own eyes after birth, in any case. The only disadvantage previously-blind people would have is a relative lack of skills to use it.

Third eye

[Anonymous Coward]

You already have a third eye.

You've just forgotten how to use it.

Re:Third eye

[Anonymous Coward]

I poked mine out when I was 6. Fell out of a tree.

Dupe!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dupe!

Does it use Linux?

[snutte]

If it runs on Linux im willing to poke an eye out just to get one! :D

Re:Does it use Linux?

[StupidKatz]

If this is your first time, you may experience some difficulty.

May I suggest attempting to poke your eye in instead?

Star Trek?

[rogabean]

Let the Geordi jokes begin!

Re:Star Trek?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, okay, me first! Geordi walks on a hoverbus, and the driver says "get in the back, nigger", and Geordi replies "I'm black?" ROFFLMAO

Re:Star Trek?

[Androk]

OT i know...
Whenever I see Levar Burton (Geordi) on any tv show/movie, i always think he looks strange, because i can see his eyes.

Androk

Re:Star Trek?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's usually the terrible acting that puts me off.

Re:Star Trek?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you're black...and ---- yooooo can do anythingggggg. Places to go, penis to sow, a reading rainbow.

Butterfly in the skyyyyyyyy.
I can blow chunks twice as highhhhhhh.
Take a look. It's in a book.
Like this nightmare song from Reading Rainbowwwwwww.

I want a butterfly pen like what swinger Bill Cosby used, but all I got is Wild 'n' Crazy kids. Boo hooOoooooOoooo.

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd be a giant insect!

Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these

[commodoresloat]

Screw that. Imagine reading Beowulf with your improved vision!!

Not University of California

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the University of California, it's the University of Southern California. There's a big difference.

Re:Not University of California

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they're just bitter, like A&M should really be the "University of Texas."

Re:Not University of California

[batobin]

HUGE difference. And USC is NOT "Southern Cal". It drives me up the wall when people say that (sports announcers do it all the time).

"Cal" is a name given to UC Berkeley because it was the first university in California (1868). A person listing the UC's would say "UCSB, UCLA, UCSC, Cal, UCSD..."

University of Southern California was founded 12 years after UC Berkeley. Other than being in the same conference (Pac10), the schools have no affiliation with each other. USC is a private school. Cal is public.

Re:Not University of California

[Gogo Dodo]

A person listing the UC's would say "UCSB, UCLA, UCSC, Cal, UCSD..."

Actually, lots would say "Santa Barbara, UCLA, Santa Cruz, Berkeley, San Diego..." chopping off the "UC" part except for UCLA.

And you left off Irvine, San Francisco, Riverside, and Davis. Bonus points for Merced.

I am not impressed.

[zymano]

If you go to their website and check out the graphics it's kind of depressing really. To me this is really low tech stuff.

Re:I am not impressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

To me this is really low tech stuff.

It is very rare to miss something you have, until you lose it. Of course they will most likely improve this to allow people to see better resolutions, but you have to start from somewhere. What was the resolution for your first monitor and what is it now?

Re:I am not impressed.

[Kensho]

I cant find the graphics on the site showing what the patient sees. Can you post a link?

Re:I am not impressed.

[Weirdsmobile]

Yeah, I definitely don't plan to go blind until I can get high-def, Bluetooth-enabled eyeballs with wireless connectivity to my PSP.

Re:I am not impressed.

[zymano]

Try 'image'. It's a link in the text.

Re:I am not impressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

uh... did you even click on that link yourself? it's a diagram.

Re:I am not impressed.

[Kensho]

My thoughts exactly... that is not an image of what a person would see with the implant

Re:I am not impressed.

[Dyolf Knip]

Yeah, and then a security vulnerability comes along and you get advertisements for roach motels slapped in your field of vision. In Hindi. Displayed for your enjoyment 24/7, even while you sleep or close your eyes.

Re:I am not impressed.

[blakestah]

If you go to their website and check out the graphics it's kind of depressing really. To me this is really low tech stuff.

I went to college and grad school with the President and CEO of Second Sight, and have spoken with him many times about his company and products. I currently work in implantable technology fields as well, although not eye-related work.

Their approach is good and appropriate. To a man with no sight, even one electrode that works well is a godsend. Until you have the devices implanted and undergo beta-testing, you don't really know what will and will not work. People say you need a million sources of light because there are a million photoreceptors in each eye - but that isn't necessarily true. You have about 30,000 inner hair cells in each cochlea, but you can understand speech with only 8 electrodes. I'd be really surprised if it took more than 16 for rudimentary fundamental vision.

In addition, I also know a group working on brain stimulation (instead of retinal), and there is another group working on retinal stimulation. Its an engineering challenge because of the cornea barrier and pain associated with scratches, but it will be solved by one or more of these groups. There are currently 3 independently developed cochlear implants, there look to be about three visual prosthetics on the market in another 5 to 10 years....

And the blind shall see.

Re:I am not impressed.

[74nova]

i dont know, maybe im the one missing something, but it seems to me that this is pretty cool. they are connecting to rods and cones, not plugging into a usb port. good lord, man, what do you want? its in development. how is it low tech to be interfacing electronics into the human retina?

Correction: the name of the University is wrong!

[zozobra]

The Doheny Eye Institute is afiliated with USC -- the University of Southern California -- NOT the University of California. Read the article carefully.

This is incredible but....

[shakezula]

Do you think they could make the sunglasses look like a gold banana clip?

work injuries?

[Anonymous Coward]

what about detached retinas? this is huge proplem too, and keeps people from working.

panning your head

[goombah99]

In principle one pixel would be enough, if you could pan your head and remember what you saw at each pixel. With 16 pixels this is simplified. Your 4096x1024 pixel scanner on your desktop does not have 4 mllion sensors, it has just 1/4000th of that number: 1024 and it uses them in a pushbroom fashion. Those 360 degree pan cameras also just use a narrow slit they push broom. Same with many sattelites.

the question is whether your brain is up to of synthesizing a image from a pan and deconvolving the large pixels down to high resolution. There's some evidence it might be able to synthesize the image from the pan since it already does that for your blind spot. And the ganglia in the eyeball do some deconvolution already so that might be possible too.

I guess we'll find out when the blind people tell us.

Re:panning your head

[rharris]

Actually, if i remember correctly. a humans iconic memory only lasts about 2 seconds max. so panning your head would be rather useless, one pixil at a time.

Re:panning your head

[Anonymous Coward]

The vOICe (http://www.seeingwithsound.com/ for that reason pans 64 pixels at a time in 1 or 2 seconds, in sound. Sound processing tends to be well-organized in early blind people as well.

oh wonderful

[dhfriedman]

"Microsoft Vision is installing drivers for inclement weather driving, please reboot."

Re:oh wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what the program would be called, VisIO?

Re:oh wonderful

[dhfriedman]

They'll probably just build it into MSIE. Take that Firefox.

Re:oh wonderful

[khrtt]

I don't think Visio was originally developed, or named by M$. They bought it up when it was Visio 4.0, AFAICR.

It would be better to grow new ones...

[mark-t]

It would be better to grow brand new biological eyes (compatible with the intended recipients DNA), and have those implanted rather than electo-mechanical solutions. One key advantage among many being that such replacements could actually grow with the person, and recipients would not be limited to adults.

Re:It would be better to grow new ones...

[cnettel]

A bit like it would be better to just teleport people than going with your typical airline?

It's hard enough to grow some kinds of human cells, and growing them in an orderly fashion to get the exactness necessary for something like normal vision, is very far away right now. I think it's quite likely that an artificial implant with a good interface will be a good-enough, or even better-than-original solution.

Re:It would be better to grow new ones...

[lxt]

...actually, eyes don't grow at all. They might enlarge by at the most a few millimetres during very early life, and don't grow at all after about 5 years of age.

Re:It would be better to grow new ones...

[mark-t]

Growing new replacement organs lies well within the domain of feasability for the not terribly distant future, even though it is not actually possible right now

Teleportation, however, is much much MUCH further down the pipeline.

And they call me ...

[jurt1235]

4 eyes...

Alternatives...

[lxt]

...it's probably worth pointing out the research already done in various other areas - I believe a few months ago the Univeristy of Wisconsin completed a test whereby a grid of electrodes was placed on the tongue of a blind person, who wore a head mounted camera - light intensity would trigger impulses sent to the grid. Apparantly one of the subjsects even managed to navigate around a maze using it. I'm sure a /. story was posted about it...

But even this was based on previous research - I remember about similar experiments done in the late 1980s, albeit on a far lower resolution and using a extremely pad of electrodes mounted on the chest.

No news here.

[qualico]

*sigh* This story has been around for years. Here is a better resolution version from 2000: Artifical Retinas

Re:No news here.

[TerminaMorte]

It's news to some of us.

I can understand your problem with this article if it were a dupe from 2000, but it's not. It's new to quite a few people.

Re:No news here.

[qualico]

point taken
not to be argumentative, you could say that for just about any story though.

Re:No news here.

[qualico]

nice web page, btw

I'm skeptical.

[ArAgost]

I can't see the point in using this stuff.

Re:I'm skeptical.

[godlike]

well.. if you were blind, you would..

Re:I'm skeptical.

[ArAgost]

Wow, your sense of humor blinds me :|

needed: elastomeric conductors & semiconductor

[G4from128k]

Technology like this will take off when we can make flexible circuitry that can conform to the inner surface of the retina in a moving eyeball. The ultimate artificial retina would have a photosensitive array on one surface and a nerve-stimulating grid on the other surface. A small transducer coil elsewhere on the body would provide power to the unit.

Finding a new elastomeric polymer with conductive/semi-conductive properties (think stretchy OLED polymers) would help make this happen. Or perhaps blending silicon and silicone could be possible. I could also see using RFID manufacturing technologies (which can handle silicon dies smaller than 0.3 mm) to create arrays of semiconductor circuits embedded in a flexible polymer plastic matrix.

Once the electronics becomes flexible enough, they could be used in a wide array of neurological repair/augmentation applications.

USC isn't part of UC ...

[__aadkms7016]

Error in the posting -- this work was done at USC (University of Southern California), which isn't part of the UC (University of California, the umbrella term for the public university system in California). Oh, and to pre-empt the followups, UC is also the University of Chicago and the University of Cincinnati, among others ... but not the University of Colorado, which calls itself CU to avoid this name overloading problem :-)

Other efforts

[karvind]

I just did quick search on slashdot and found following stories. Impressive to see so many efforts going on to restore human vision. And little more info on Retinitis Pigmentosa

Silicon Retinal Impants

Optobionics: surgically implanted an artificial retina into three patients who are blind from retinitis pigmentosa.

Boston Retinal Implant Project

silicon-based bionic retinas and bionic eyes (Australia)

4mm microchip is attached to a type of silicone called polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)

Solar implants: a 2mm chip that contains about 5,000 microscopic solar cells that convert light into electrical impulses.

So? It's better than nothing...take hearing:

[lxt]

It really is better than nothing - take cochlear implants. Nobody who recieves an implant (which works) complains about the quality of the sound produced...and it really is far removed from what we hear (imagine everything sounding like it was being spoken by Daleks, and you'll get the picture).

As with all technologies, you'd expect the resolution to improve over time - in the case of cochlear implants, sound quality has improved with increased numbers of electrodes being used in the cochlear, and the size of speech processors has been reduced to the point where they now look like typical hearing aids.

However, I'd imagine surgery wise, although it can be extremely complicated to insert a cochlear implant (especially if the cochlear itself is deformed), it's a hell of a lot easier to upgrade / repair a damaged implant than it would be to upgrade / repair a retinal implant.

Re:So? It's better than nothing...take hearing:

[CrazyTalk]

That brings up an interesting point - some deaf people are against the use of cochlear implants, thinking that it will somehow destroy "deaf culture" . (Personally, I think that's hogwash, people with a birth defect or disease do not constitute a "culture". I wish we could wipe out the "cancer culture" and many others). I wonder if there are blind groups that feel the same way about potentially eliminating blindness?

Re:So? It's better than nothing...take hearing:

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure you know what culture means well enough to say that certain ones don't exist?

"The word culture comes from the Latin root colere (to inhabit, to cultivate, or to honor). In general, it refers to human activity; different definitions of culture reflect different theories for understanding, or criteria for valuing, human activity. Anthropologists use the term to refer to the universal human capacity to classify experiences, and to encode and communicate them symbolically. They consider this to be a defining feature of Homo."

People who experience the same lifestyle and philosophical changes as a result of cancer and cancer treatment don't meet those criteria?

Re:So? It's better than nothing...take hearing:

[CrazyTalk]

Sure, technically, they meet the dictionary definition criteria - if you can call people that share a disease a culture - but that doesnt make it a "culture" that should be preserved at the expense of a cure.

Re:So? It's better than nothing...take hearing:

[Caseyscrib]

FTA:
Humayun said he hopes to begin testing a 60-electrode model of the Argus by late 2005.

Humayun said the Argus 60's microchip will be one-quarter the size of the current model, and should offer a significant improvement.

"The brain has hundreds of millions of photodetectors, and to use only 16 of them really speaks volumes for the brain's ability to use this artificial visual input and make sense out of it," Humayun said. "Another pixel means higher resolution. Our models show that patients could read or have face recognition."

Re:So? It's better than nothing...take hearing:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it should be a choice, but it's an odd situation. Parents of children who are candidates for such surgery have the responsibility for the child, and thus should have the opportunity to make that choice for the child. Despite what any advocates to the contrary might say.

Having watched the SciAm show recently where they profiled the retinal implant tech, and showed Alan Alda what the next step will be (16x16 array), and what they hope to get (32x32) after that, was rather cool.

The one subject they profiled for the show was an older man injured in an industrial accident. He of course was astonished by just the 4x4 pixel grid.

As far as the "deaf culture", well, it's kind of a strange human thing. Those who survive a common set of difficulties often have a strange bittersweet bond about those difficulties. Of course, there are intentional difficulties (Basic Training, frat/sorority hazing, any other hazing, etc) that can bring this about, as can any other short-term or life-long difficulty.

To say that deaf culture is unique and should be preserved (i.e., at the extreme, that cochlear implants should be banned) is probably going too far. Might as well stop all adaptive technology research and development, because by god you've got to be tough enough to overcome your problems with as little tech as possible! Fuck that.

Re:So? It's better than nothing...take hearing:

[Thurn und Taxis]

It's easy to be dismissive of Deaf culture (they capitalize the D when referring to the culture) if you define them as "people with a birth defect or disease...." That's not how they define themselves, however. While I would be hard-pressed to pin down what does and does not constitute a culture, one feature of a culture that almost everyone can agree on is a common language. Members of the Deaf culture do share a common language - here in the U.S., it's American Sign Language (ASL). Despite the fact that it's "spoken" using the hands, it has all the properties of a language - it's got its own grammar, communicating activates the language centers of the brain, etc. It's also not just a mapping of English to gestures, any more than German is a mapping of English to other sounds. So Deaf culture is real, and not just a big deafness support group. From that standpoint (to answer your question), I think it's unlikely that blind people will establish their own culture.

As for cochlear implants destroying Deaf culture, I don't have any firsthand experience of this but I've heard that the culture's attitude toward implants is softening. Initially, the culture was worried that children with implants would learn English and not ASL, so the culture would die out (and, I suspect, many of them feared that they wouldn't be able to talk to their own children, which is a pretty scary concept). They saw implants as the ethical equivalent of performing surgery on an immigrant to make them speak English instead of their native tongue. What they're starting to realize (much as many immigrant cultures started to realize shortly after coming to America in the late 19th / early 20th centuries) is that their children will learn *both* languages, and be able to navigate both cultures equally effectively, and be better off for it.

Can you imagine being there...

[Sivar]

When someone who has been blind for their whole life sees for the first time, with a device that you and your team designed?

THIS is the true value of science.

Re:Can you imagine being there...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is doubtful that the brain of a person who has been blind for his whole life could interpret the visual signals properly.

This will only help people who have lost their vision later in life.

Re:Can you imagine being there...

[lxt]

I've actually been in a room during a cochlear implant switch-on...it's not as dramatic as you'd think. I'd imagine the same would be true for this type of experiment - it's not like they can instantly hear perfectly, since they don't know what "sound sounds like".

Re:Can you imagine being there...

[Anonymous Coward]

The other value is rehabilitating people who have a disabling accident. Imagine if Linus Torvalds had an accident in, say, 1990, during which he lost his vision; a lot of /.ers probably wouldn't be sitting in front of Linux boxes. I might not be sitting in front of an OS X box; who knows. It only takes one person with a great mind who will finally able to operate within our infrastructure using such protheses to make a huge impact on society.

Re:Can you imagine being there...

[Superfarstucker]

"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."

"If I have seen further [than Descartes], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Now what of this theoretical 'my team'?

Re:Can you imagine being there...

[Anonymous Coward]

are you sure? maybe the TRUE value of science is saving the race by building homes on mars, or saving wildlife or decreasing pollution or....

Meh science has no TRUE value in anything outside of increasing your own survival.

If blind people had any sizable wealth we'd have discovered a cure long ago.

...not totally true

[lxt]

I don't think this is totally the case.

Having some experience with cochlear implants, I can tell you children who are born completely deaf - ie, have never heard sound in their life - often adapt (over time) to cochlear implants.

However, most adults cannot do this - the brain of an infant obviously is under constant development, and so can learn how to "hear" far more easily than a totally deaf adult.

Re:...not totally true

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are right. I'm a cochlear implant recipicent. I got my CI when I was 3 in 1989. I can hear and know the sounds fine.

But adults are a completely different story. They might be able to hear, but they might not be able to "learn" sound discrimination. An example of this is being able to tell the difference between low frequency and high frequency sounds necessary for speech discrimination. Of course, I was implanted early so I just ingrained that information naturally. An adult-implanted person will have a much harder time doing this. For what it's worth, I recall the auditory memory area of your brain, if you haven't heard anything in your entire life, would be remapped for other uses. Perhaps that's why it's so difficult for adults to learn sound?

I've been extremely lucky to be implanted at such an early age to develop my oral and auditory skills. Many deaf people would oppose to a cochlear implant; I didn't have a chocie, but if I did, I'd have still gotten it. It's a great thing!

Re:...not totally true

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I also have some experience of audiology and cochlear implants.

I have to say that implantation age has a huge bearing on the eventual outcome of the CI implant process. However, the reason goes well beyond the ability to discriminate frequencies. The understanding of speech and language syntax is developed at a very early age, and if CI is left until the individual can make their own choice for implant (as many advocates of the Deaf community argue), then the implant is much less effective because of the radical differences in spoken language and BSL or ASL (as examples).

The only case where a CI is really viable in an adult is when sudden onset sensorineural hearing loss occurs. Many people do not realise that it is possible to just wake up one morning and go totally deaf - but this does happen on a relatively frequent basis.

I believe this is also true of the retinal implant. Either implant from birth or in cases of rod/cone degeneration (like retinitis pigmentosa, I think) but not unless it is completely necessary.

Obligatory Classic Slashdot Responses

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory Slashdot negative responses:

- I can see perfectly well. Who needs this!
- I don't see how this directly benefits me. It's useless!
- The resolution on this isn't high enough to be useful. Discontinue development immediately or just don't bother us until you have reached perfection!
- There aren't enough blind people to make this worthwhile. It will never make money!
- Why don't we spend more money on things that will benefit everybody?

Just wanted to get those out in the open as they are bound to appear shortly anyway.

AGAIN!!!

[NeedleSurfer]

These inventions seems to appear often here

But rarely in real life...

Anyone else thinking what you could do with this??

[V_drive]

How about:

- A jack that accepts video signal from a computer for work or GAMING
- Backward or otherwise mounted cameras at all times giving "rear view" (eyes in the back of your head!) appearing off to the side of the main image
- Your personal HUD! News, stock ticker, email, personal alerts and reminders, responding to voice activated commands
- Night vision or infrared
- Television receiver with subtitles
- Zooming lenses

Okay, none of that will be helpful with 4x4 res, but think of the possibilities for future use!

Then again, think of the pranks you could pull on someone by splicing it.

OMGPWNT

[DeanMeister]

That's really pretty cool, I can't wait till a blind person can come back after not seeing for thirty years and kick my ass in halo. Hey, it could happen!

Re:OMGPWNT

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone play Halo in 2035?

Re:OMGPWNT

[DeanMeister]

Because then it would be vintage, like pac-man.

Re:OMGPWNT

[trongey]

>>...I can't wait till a blind person can come back after not seeing for thirty years and kick my ass in halo...

Or they could just go ahead and kick mine now. Sight would be an unneeded advantage.

Re:Anyone else thinking what you could do with thi

[Anonymous Coward]

Your personal HUD! News, stock ticker, email, personal alerts and reminders, responding to voice activated commands

Don't forget about the spam.

Old news

[Kaptain Kruton]

Newsweek May 19, 2003 has an article about similar technology. I have also seen an old episode of Nova (or some other scientific show on PBS) that talked of this technology. This isn't new stuff.
-Kruton

Re:BLIND PEOPLE SHOULD STAY BLIND

[Cobra_666]

Sometimes I think there should be a -1 Retarded mod...

degenerated?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The implant only works on patients with degenerated rods and cones." I doubt that. I am sure it works on anyone who has a healthy optic nerve and a developed primary visual cortex.

Re:BLIND PEOPLE SHOULD STAY BLIND

[DigiShaman]

How in the hell was the parent post from AC not modded as troll? The fact it got modded UP is rather distrubing to say the least.

Ànd yet again

[fatcow]

Pornography drives technology.

This device will finally allow blind people to see what they're missing!

Re:Wee

[ilikejam]

CAUTION! Do not post dupes with remaining good eye.

What is the resolution of the human eye?

[Infinite Entropy]

What would be the 'resolution' of the human eye? I think its gotta be in the range of maybe 5000*5000 to 10,000*10,000. But maybe its higher. I know I read a cool story by Greg Egan about transferring your mind into a computer and how the visual data was generated by raytracing backwards from the simulated retina, one ray per cell just like how its one ray per pixel. But I wondered at the time how many rays that was.

Re:What is the resolution of the human eye?

[elgatozorbas]

IIRC the resolution of the eye is approxmately 0.3x10^-3 radians (in both directions), based on the optics of the eye lens. The resolution of the rods and cones themselves may be lower.

Re:What is the resolution of the human eye?

[Infinite Entropy]

If my math is right, (and it probabbly isn't), that comses to about 500 dpi at 1 foot, which seems high.

Why didn't we think of that?

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll get right on that. Thanks Mark-T! Sincerely, Joe Scientist

There would probably be some crossover

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the most likely result would be synaesthesia. This is a "disorder" in which smells, sights, sounds, and words cross over into each other's domain.

A ringing phone may be yellow, a quiet one red. It's a very odd thing.

It seems to me that if you started getting a huge amount of extra input, you would indeed process it, but you might start to experience more of this. That's not necessarily a bad thing... synaesthetes often have excellent memory because of the extra characteristics things have. Numbers may seem coloured, or what have you.

It's unlikely you'd ever have the kind of perfect vision in back that you do in front, but certainly, you'd be aware of objects behind you. Would you care that that awareness also made your left arm tingle, or reminded you of cookies? Probably not.

Argus NOT a Greek God

[Danuvius]

Argus is a *giant*, not a God, in greek mythology.

He did have 100 eyes though. "He was thus a very effective watchman, as only a few of the eyes would sleep at a time; there were always eyes still awake.", as the Wikipedia notes

Scientific American Frontiers on PBS

[Orp]

Scientific American Frotntiers, the PBS science show hosted by Alan Alda, recently did a segment on this technology and how it worked for a man who was blinded as an adult. The other segment was on a deaf girl who received a cochlear implant.

Why fucking bother

[Anonymous Coward]

and just let natural selection take it's course.

Go ahead, fucking flame away

Re:Why fucking bother

[Zareste]

you're not worth it

What a libertarian *really* is

[Anonymous Coward]

A libertarian someone who has taken Econ 101 and knows that free markets and capitalism are wonderfully efficient and powerful mechanisms, but failed to pay attention to the nasty little details about natural monopolies and lack of perfect information.

That's really too strong. There are ideas in libertarianism that the mainstream government could gain from by moving towards. But the Libertarian party would have to be a hell of a lot more centrist before it got me interested in voting for it. Restoring land rights to American Indians? Trying to manage all ecological problems by assessing a value in property damage caused by polluters? They're completely out of touch with reality.

Re:What a libertarian *really* is

[birge]

How convenient. You get to define libertarianism and then slam it. Pretty easy. You can set up a straw man argument for any philosophy and take it down in the next sentence if you only care about appearing correct and not making intellectual headway.

You can find simplistic libertarians just as you can find people of all political pursuasions who take things too far. At it's best, libertarianism recognizes that the devil is in the interpretation of "does no one else harm" and that there are very difficult questions to answer. The difference between libertarians and most people these days is simply that the former actual start from a principle at all.

Re:Anyone else thinking what you could do with thi

[Phyvo]

Why would you need an implant? A pair of really cool sunglasses could do a lot of that without you having to slice up or interfere with any part of your eyeball. The trick of putting little mirrors in the corners so that you can see behind you is actually pretty old.... spies used it all the time.

It's probably going to happen in some form or another, if most of it hasn't happened already. The main problems would be bringing all the technology together into one pair and having yet *another* source of constant distraction. I'll take the goggles without the email, Sam Fisher style please.

goodbye, "No Camera" policies

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of places right now have "no camera" policies, like:

• movie theaters
• stores
• government buildings

I wonder if they will make blind people turn off their cameras? It doesn't seem like that would fly. And when the camera resolution gets a little better, and a wireless transmitter is added, suddenly everything the blind person sees is on the internet, instantly. I think this will make a lot of people nervous, but obviously blind people aren't going to give up their cameras...should be interesting to see how it plays out.

Re:goodbye, "No Camera" policies

[Rent A Ham]

TV producers will be all over it when that would work. Real life Truman show! But seriously, I think it would take another 15 years or more to get even close to high-res vision for blind people. In 10 years they have built a 4 by 4 pixel vision, wich gives you the ability to see something walk by.

Re:Anyone else thinking what you could do with thi

[learn fast]

That reminds me... I have this feeling... I can't quite put my finger on it... I keep repeating this question, over and over in my mind... What is the Matrix? What is the Matrix?

Re:Anyone else thinking what you could do with thi

[Bones3D_mac]

There was a short anime series that used a premise like this called "Goku: Midnight Eye". Basically the main character's eye is destroy and is eventually replaced with an electronic one that can do much of what you've mentioned. However, in addition to that, the eye also acts as a direct link between his brain and various computer systems around him, which he can control as needed.

It's certainly an interesting concept, but I think were still a good 10-15 years off from getting to that point. Also, the prospected of having one's eyes cut open isn't exactly appealing, when you consider a set of goggles could do most of this stuff without being invasive.

USA BANS (HUMAN) ARTIFICIAL EYE IMPLANTS

[Anonymous Coward]

Has USA banned eye sensor implants, because of the difficulty in making an safe 'seal' through the cranium? Are they driving surgeons and technology offshore?.

Bit hazy, but a TV program showed some eye institute in Spain? surgically inserting a 12*12 probes into the brain, with CCD sensor worn on sunglasses.

Seems the insurance companies in USA means leading edge experimental eye/brain implant research is being driven offshore.

Authoritarian bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

We should outlaw fireplaces and gas heaters too. I mean, if you burn anything it's harmful. Oh, and coal plants for energy...and...

Take away my right to smoke, and I might just snap.

Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that no one has been saying those things.

The world as the implantees see it!

[Ray Alloc]

Even a 4x4 pixels wide viewfield can be enough to watch the adventures of Captain Lowres!

3 years for going to the movies?

[davidwr]

The new law gives you up to 3 years in jail if you go to the movies with a videocamera.

If someone has a future one of these and it communicates with the brain wirelessly, the movie theaters can't kick them out because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but if they patron doesn't turn it off, he'll be arrested. Very Kafkaesque.

Re:3 years for going to the movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

The new law gives you up to 3 years in jail if you go to the movies with a videocamera.

If someone has a future one of these and it communicates with the brain wirelessly, the movie theaters can't kick them out because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but if they patron doesn't turn it off, he'll be arrested. Very Kafkaesque.

An interesting theoretical paradox.

However, there are two problems. First of all, it's unlikely to happen in practice. It's just bad PR for any movie theatre to press charges against a blind person, especially if the blind person has no other recourse.

Secondly, a judge would likely rule that a retinal implant is an artificial eye. The brain is the device that does the recording; we don't consider viewing a movie or reading a book to be "making an illegal copy" in your memory. Humans aren't considered to be videocameras, even when wearing focusing or vision enhancing devices such as glasses or binoculars.

I don't see why a judge would rule any differently in this case.
--
AC

In Omni Magazine?

[Somegeek]

I remember an article on this technology in Omni Magazine back in the early 80's. Same stuff, small grid of implants hooked up to a camera embedded in a pair of glasses to enable the blind to see. Did Omni just make this up or did this technology just drop off the face of the earth for 20 years? I couldn't find a reference to the article in a google search but I'm sure I read it. Unfortunatly my Omni collection is about 3000 miles away...

Potential Timeline...

[Digital_Mercenary]

2005-The blind can now see do to electronic implants
2012-Vision itself is improved to electronic implants, airforce pilots now have HUD plugged into brain
2023-Police dept. reports lives saves do to night-vision and thermal implants
2024-Scientist find behavior can be affected by send signals to brain via implants potential for use as a cure to depression.
2025-MIT students arrested for cracking electronic implant code and making it public.
2036-School no longer neccesary, knowledge will simply be downloaded to those who request it from the dept. of education.
2047-growing internet underground for illegal implant hacks and mods.
2058-Ten hospitalized do the implant virus
2079-Dept. of Homeland Security demands all newborns must be implanted withing thirty-days of birth for National securtiy reasons.