Slashdot Mirror


Bionic Eye Gives Blind Man Sight

AmigaMMC writes "A man who lost his sight 30 years ago says he can now see flashes of light after being fitted with a bionic eye. Ron, 73, had the experimental surgery seven months ago at London's Moorfield's eye hospital. He says he can now follow white lines on the road, and even sort socks using the bionic eye, known as Argus II. I wouldn't go as far as claiming he regained his sight, but this certainly is a biotechnological breakthrough."

203 comments

  1. Then again by AnonGCB · · Score: 5, Funny

    He only got the starter package -- Due to the economy he couldn't afford his first choice with the laser.

    --
    http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    1. Re:Then again by Feminist-Mom · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I agree. There need to be more "follow-up" journalism in general. I keep hearing about improvements in solar electric panels, but then never hear again about the "breakthrought".

    2. Re:Then again by Fluffeh · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I see! I See!" said the blind man. Secretly, everyone knew he was full of shit...

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:Then again by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      "I see," said the blind man, as he picked up his hammer and saw.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    4. Re:Then again by gamanimatron · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...and his robe and wizard hat...

      --
      cogito ergo dubito
    5. Re:Then again by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      No...the lasers are mounted on top of their fricken heads!

    6. Re:Then again by knavel · · Score: 1

      "I see," said the blind man as he pissed into the wind. "It's all coming back to me."

    7. Re:Then again by JCCyC · · Score: 1

      Does it make toot-toot-toot noises when it focuses, at least?

    8. Re:Then again by uniquegeek · · Score: 1

      A few months ago, I showed a proof of a job for a client of out local CNIB. She bent down towards the counter, with her nose three inches away from the paper. "Oh!" she said, "This looks great!"

      I'm probably five years away from being legally blind, myself, and I had an extremely hard time controlling myself from cracking up and laughing.

    9. Re:Then again by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      Probably, since I have seen a person getting some kind of digital eye that enables the person to see in about 8x8 pixels.

      Can't cite that though, because it was a couple of years ago on a TV program I can't recall. You're just gonna have to believe me or ignore my post.

      --
      Here be signatures
  2. 73 years old? by amclay · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would have imagined they would want a subject that would live for longer (average) so that they could continue to have studies about long-term use and wear on the eye socket. That being said, I'm glad progress is being made, and look forward to my own cybor...er replacement eye.

    --
    It's all fun and games till someone divides by 0. Then it's hilarious.
    1. Re:73 years old? by Abstrackt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe they wanted an older (closer to dead) person to test on because the process wasn't guaranteed to be safe.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    2. Re:73 years old? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA. It's a clinical trial, it has two years yet to run.

      After that, I expect that the designers will do BionicEyeMk2, and there'll be another clinical trial. Maybe in a decade, this will become generally available.

      Well, generally available to people with Retinitis Pigmentosa, anyway. It's intended to help people with that condition, not just any old blind guy. What other forms of blindness it might be useful for remains to be seen.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:73 years old? by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since it's an invasive procedure and quite experimental, they may also be considering that getting the 0.8alpha version could preclude getting the more perfected version later. So there's an advantage to a subject that would be too old to undergo an implant by the time the production version is ready. He gets some vision (which beats none) and nobody loses their chance for an even better outcome as a result of the experiment.

    4. Re:73 years old? by humina · · Score: 4, Informative

      You need a patient that has gone completely blind from Retinitis pigmentosa or Ag related macular degeneration in order to put the implant in. You will still have better vision in the early stages of the disease. Depending on how bad you get the disease it could take a decade or so before you completely lose your vision. most of the test subjects are quite old for this technology.

      --
      check out the best blog ever:
      http://oehlberg.com
    5. Re:73 years old? by amclay · · Score: 1

      I actually did RTFA, and I thought it would be beneficial to do this clinic on a younger person for two reasons, both humanitarian, and scientific. How would doing a clinical trial on someone who would benefit more be detracting on the study? Sorry for ruining your image of /. not RTFAs.

      --
      It's all fun and games till someone divides by 0. Then it's hilarious.
    6. Re:73 years old? by humina · · Score: 4, Informative

      I actually did RTFA, and I thought it would be beneficial to do this clinic on a younger person for two reasons, both humanitarian, and scientific. How would doing a clinical trial on someone who would benefit more be detracting on the study? Sorry for ruining your image of /. not RTFAs.

      These implants are only useful to people with retinitis pigmentosa and age related macular degeneration. You rarely/never see full blindness from these diseases in the young. I think a young patient that has gone completely blind from those diseases would be 50.

      In both of those diseases the rods and cones in your eye degenerate but the nerve cells that are routing information through the optic nerve are still in tact. These are the cells that are stimulated. In other forms of blindness (such as damage to the optical cortex or a severed optical nerve) these implants will not work.

      --
      check out the best blog ever:
      http://oehlberg.com
    7. Re:73 years old? by karnal · · Score: 4, Funny

      What other forms of blindness it might be useful for remains to be seen.

      Tell me you meant that in the form of a pun... please!

      --
      Karnal
    8. Re:73 years old? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Generally, you want the short term studies done first; old dude who's going to likely to die soon anyways is likely to cost a lot less if something unexpected messes up bad.

      Save the long term studies for the next version that might actually restore some useful vision.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re:73 years old? by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      He didn't die from an electric shock to the inside of his skull, he was just old and had a stroke!

    10. Re:73 years old? by zach297 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It said in the summary that he was 73 and had been blind for 30 years. That means he was blind since he was 43 which is far below the "young" age of 50.

    11. Re:73 years old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they'll simply pop the eye out when he dies and sell it to somebody else. Seems like a sensible business plan to me.

    12. Re:73 years old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, a lot of other forms of blindness, mostly those due to damage/trauma to the eyeball, would be fixable.

    13. Re:73 years old? by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      No, this is version 4.0.
      They want people to take it and improve it before they get a Slashvertisement telling us it is all up and ready to use at version 4.5.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    14. Re:73 years old? by raynet · · Score: 2, Informative

      But was that blind as in can't see anything or just legally blind?

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    15. Re:73 years old? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      It's a clinical trial, it has two years yet to run.

      So, then they just yank the thing out of his head? Surely something like this requires a lot of ongoing maintenance and if the trial is over who would provide that service? Hopefully they won't just flash the BIOS so the thing goes to a test pattern or something...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    16. Re:73 years old? by againjj · · Score: 1
      Couldn't see anything:

      Ron, who has not revealed his surname, told the BBC: "For 30 years I've seen absolutely nothing at all, it's all been black, but now light is coming through. Suddenly to be able to see light again is truly wonderful.["]

    17. Re:73 years old? by raynet · · Score: 1

      Assuming on the illness he has, there must have been a phase of degrading vision I think, thus he has either been "blind" for 30+ years, or 30 years ago he did see little... I just find the number 30 too round to be true.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
  3. I'm not buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    so a man gets his sight back after being blind for 30 years, and the very first thing he does ISN'T download porn? This is some kind of hoax.

    1. Re:I'm not buying it by dov_0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe he prefers his porn to be, er, in 'braille'.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    2. Re:I'm not buying it by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Braille porn where you can 'touch' the pictures? You sir, might be the greatest genius of our age.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    3. Re:I'm not buying it by Spasemunki · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe he learned something from going blind the first time...

    4. Re:I'm not buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would certainly give more meaning to the phrase "rub one out".

    5. Re:I'm not buying it by sir_eccles · · Score: 1

      You do know there is a braille edition of Playboy.

    6. Re:I'm not buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually I lived with a blind guy who loved porn. Really. I never knew this until I met him, but he had tons of text porn that his computer would read to him at incredible speeds. sounded incredibly funny to hear a computer talking dirty in a voice approximating chipmunk speed, but it was pretty hot to him, I guess.

    7. Re:I'm not buying it by GoombaTroopa · · Score: 5, Funny

      This reminds me of a stupid idea I thought of once: A Braille monitor!

      I could imagine it now, a blind person moving their fingers across the screen, saying "There are two girls and a cup AARRGH AARRGH AARRGH AARRGH!!!"

    8. Re:I'm not buying it by AikonMGB · · Score: 1

      Do you mean something like this, which has been around since the 1950s?

      Aikon-

    9. Re:I'm not buying it by princessproton · · Score: 1

      So there actually are people who "just read it for the articles"...Who knew?

      --
      I'm always positive; it's my nature.
    10. Re:I'm not buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He was blind, not crippled. You can't stop a guy masturbating, short of disabling his penis' functionality.

    11. Re:I'm not buying it by maxume · · Score: 1

      The implant is low resolution (60 electrodes). To him, looking at a bright light is porn.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:I'm not buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so a man gets his sight back after being blind for 30 years, and the very first thing he does ISN'T download porn? This is some kind of hoax.

      Like, duh!
      How do you think he went blind in the first place.
      Do you think he wants to go blind again?

      :-)

    13. Re:I'm not buying it by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      safety glasses!

    14. Re:I'm not buying it by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...

      http://www.pornfortheblind.org/

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    15. Re:I'm not buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bumpy dots or it didn't happen!

    16. Re:I'm not buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, something everyone can volunteer to do...

    17. Re:I'm not buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the porn was huge and black and white the guy would not be able to see it. If you read the article it says he is able to see white things such as socks and the line on the road.

  4. When i see things like this... by glitch23 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wish the scientists would provide a picture that represents what the person can see so we can see for ourselves just how much of a breakthrough it is. Obviously if the guy can perform daily tasks it is great and I'm happy for the guy but I'd like to see the qualify of the images he is seeing for my own curiousity.

    --
    this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    1. Re:When i see things like this... by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are photos on the web of images grabbed from the optic nerve of a cat. They're old, but the description given (can barely see the full moon on a cloudless night) seems to compare well with those early experiments in image capture, and image capture is much easier than image injection (which is what these guys are doing).

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:When i see things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably has gotten used to doing "daily" tasks without any sight at all, but yeah I too would be curious how much better than seeing nothing at all it is.

    3. Re:When i see things like this... by humina · · Score: 1

      The original model was a 4x4 image. This model is probably in the range of 64x64 or perhaps 200x200. It is enough to do very basic facial recognition. Don't get your hopes up that there will be anything much better than that though. Cramming in enough electrodes to individually stimulate the millions of points in the eye required for correct color vision is way way off. Just know that these are grayscale and give you blobs of vision. So far off that stem cell replacements are more likely to be viable before that happens.

      --
      check out the best blog ever:
      http://oehlberg.com
    4. Re:When i see things like this... by bencoder · · Score: 5, Informative

      OK. this is the Argus II. Which means the MEA (microelectrode array) has only 60 electrodes. Call it 64 to make it easy. Take a picture from a camera. convert it to greyscale. Shrink it down to 8x8. Then expand it to fill your entire field of vision. (use a good enough editor- one that will do smoothing between pixels as you scale it up).

      That should give you a rough idea of how much data is actually available, and also why they don't want to show a picture- people wouldn't be impressed. But to me, this is exciting.

    5. Re:When i see things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wish the scientists would provide a picture that represents what the person can see so we can see for ourselves just how much of a breakthrough it is. Obviously if the guy can perform daily tasks it is great and I'm happy for the guy but I'd like to see the qualify of the images he is seeing for my own curiousity.

      So much of what we "see" is affected by how our brain interprets it. The image you see is upside-down, but your brain automatically turns it around.

      How is anyone supposed to know what he sees?

    6. Re:When i see things like this... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I wish the scientists would provide a picture that represents what the person can see so we can see for ourselves just how much of a breakthrough it is.

      I would guess that they did, but the BBC thought they were boring so they're not on that page.

    7. Re:When i see things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is anyone supposed to know what he sees?

      Reach for it.

    8. Re:When i see things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Argus II has a 6x10 electrode matrix. While you can think of it as a static array, in reality, the patient is moving the head (think scanning), so there is a bit more of information than what should be apparent. Having an accurate picture of what they actually can see is not easy: the brain rewires and adapts after several months of using the implant; for instance, when talking with an implanted patient in trials of the early array (4x4), he described seeing contours of things, which if you think about, does not make a lot of sense for an array of that resolution...

    9. Re:When i see things like this... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Funny

      Take a picture from a camera. convert it to greyscale. Shrink it down to 8x8. Then expand it to fill your entire field of vision.

      So if you see this then he see this.

      Perhaps its a blessing afterall.

    10. Re:When i see things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a link handy? I couldn't find these after some googling.

    11. Re:When i see things like this... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      you'd have to try the treatment on somebody that has been able to see so they know what they're supposed to be looking at. It takes the brain a good while just to learn what images are... but you get to learn it while your a baby...keeps you out of trouble.

    12. Re:When i see things like this... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      the rest is figuring out the practicalities. After all an 8 megapixel Cmos sensor is only 2/3" square, more than small enough to fit INSIDE an eye. It's what to connect it to and what signals it needs to send that's the hard part.

    13. Re:When i see things like this... by evilsofa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have retinitis pigmentosa; I'm 39, and have only lost my peripheral vision so far. Pictures of what I can see and can't see wouldn't translate very well. The part of my vision where I can't see does not show as black, like when you close your eyes. There's no color at all - it's not color, it's nothing. What color do you see out of the back of your head?

      The nothing is so nothing that as it slowly took over my peripheral vision over a period of 20 years, I never noticed it was there. It was not until an optometrist looked into my eyes while I was getting new glasses that I found out it was happening.

    14. Re:When i see things like this... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      if you've had sight your brain is already programmed, it just needs the smallest bit of information, like looking at an elephant thru a pinhole. If you already know you're supposed to be seeing an elephant. Trying this on somebody who's never had sight would be a different issue.

    15. Re:When i see things like this... by jd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Slashdot covered the story at the time, but I don't have the URL handy.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    16. Re:When i see things like this... by taylorius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, what he perceives will be nothing like an 8x8 bitmap image. His brain will do all sorts of cool vision interpretation, including accumulating visual scene information over time (by way of small motions of the head, for example). With all this, I imagine that what he sees will be WAY higher fidelity than an 8x8 bitmap.

    17. Re:When i see things like this... by pHus10n · · Score: 0

      Heh. Only on Slashdot would someone round-up from 60 to 64 to "make it easy" :)

    18. Re:When i see things like this... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      A modern DLP chip can pack movable micromirrors in more densely than the cones in my eye are spaced. I'd be amazed if they couldn't make simple electrodes smaller than that by an order of magnitude.

      I believe when you're saying we won't get much better, you're thinking of the direct brain interface research to restore sight to people who have lost sight due to optic nerve damage or the like. This technology is simply stimulating the retinal nerves directly, and optic nerves are laid out in the correct spatial arrangement already, so is much simpler and more amenable to increased resolution.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    19. Re:When i see things like this... by eam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My wife is an optometrist. She wants every patient to get dilated. Her explanation is that it makes the difference between looking into a room through the keyhole or looking through the open door. Still people don't like the drops, they don't like how it feels, they don't like having blurry vision until it wears off, many people refuse to get dilated.

      I wish more people understood that you can go blind without realizing it.

      So, thanks for sharing. Maybe some nerds will listen & get their eyes checked.

    20. Re:When i see things like this... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      +1, Agree. In my youth (ha!) I did a fair bit of work with video mixing for night clubs and the like, often involving very low rez camera feeds. A 64x64 picture is plenty to give the viewer a good idea of what's going on if the viewpoint is moving in the right way (which is the natural way that the user of such a device would move their head) and the frame rate is acceptably high (30+ fps). Hell, broadcast quality analogue TV is only 320x240 or so (argue and I'll find a format that fits that, grr! :P ) and that's plenty for some people to live their whole lives in front of.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    21. Re:When i see things like this... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Pictures of what I can see and can't see wouldn't translate very well.

      The pictures on Wikipedia of what the world looks like with cataracts didn't look like what the world looked like through my cataract, either.

      If you don't want a cataract, don't take steroids. My cataract was caused by steroid eye drops prescribed for an eye infection. If you do get cataracts, get the CrystaLens, it's the only accomodating IOL on the market. The vision in my left eye (the one with the implant) is better than most young people. I need no correction in thet eye at all, not even reading glasses, and I'll be 57 next month.

    22. Re:When i see things like this... by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      That's probably the next step. Powering it would be a bitch, but I'm sure some kind of inductive power via a headband would do the job.

      I think an 8x8 sensor is just enough to make this work for an optical prosthetic. The saccading motion of the eye would build up a higher resolution image inside the patient's mind. It would still be low resolution overall, but it would be a huge step over the current prototype.

    23. Re:When i see things like this... by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Wow, thank you.

      You knew I wouldn't be able to resist clicking that link, and you had the courtesy to make it *anything* other than goatse.

      You, sir, are a saint.

      And for the love of god, don't click this.

    24. Re:When i see things like this... by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 1

      64 pixels in a two-dimensional arrangement just lead to a simple quadratic 8x8 image while it's not straight-forward what to do with 60 pixels.

    25. Re:When i see things like this... by pHus10n · · Score: 0

      That's obvious. I suppose the humor just didn't translate well for you with text. "Most" people would look at 64 as an odd way of rounding up from 60. Only the more IT/CompSci/geek-minded would look at 64 in a natural way....

    26. Re:When i see things like this... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Even the normal human eye is only high res at a very small spot.

      We move that small spot to paint a larger high res picture which we cache in our head (similar to taking multiple camera shots to create a big panorama).

      As long as the 4x4 sensor has a low enough latency, refreshes really fast and is able to be moved consistently to the place where the brain expects it, the brain can probably adapt and use it to create a higher res image.

      --
  5. Is this Slashdot or Star Trek? by gravos · · Score: 4, Funny

    His physical and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is Futile.

    1. Re:Is this Slashdot or Star Trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I, for one, salute our new bionic overlords

    2. Re:Is this Slashdot or Star Trek? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Stardot? But yes, we cyborgs are here in force. Dick Cheney is a cyborg. These days many if not most geezers have some sort of device implanted. Mine is an artificial lens in my left eye that's placed on struts so it actually focuses like a young person's. My vision was 20/400 before the surgery, which means that without my glasses I could see at 20 feet what a normal sighted person could see at 400 feet. Vision in that eye is now about 20/16, meaning I can see at 20 feet what a normal person can see at 16 feet. Details are in the link.

      The device in TFA (I saw New Scientist's writeup yesterday or the day before) only lets the patient see flashes of light; he's still blind ("legally blind" in the US is vision that can't be corrected to better than 20/200), but no longer in total darkness. This is hardly a Steve Austin six million dollar man bionic eye, but it's a first step.

      Some day there will be no more blind people. When I was a young nerd wearing coke bottle glasses and using my slide rule to cheat at math, I never dreamed I'd ever be able to get rid of my glasses, let alone have better than normal vision.

      Resistance is not only futile, when the time comes you will beg to be assimilated.

  6. Too bad he's in London by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 5, Funny

    He says he can now follow white lines on the road

    Here in California, that'd be good enough to issue him a driver license.

    1. Re:Too bad he's in London by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Follow, not snort.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Too bad he's in London by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need to hit the sweet spot though. If he starts being able to see stop signs, I'm sure they'd revoke it.

    3. Re:Too bad he's in London by PaganRitual · · Score: 2, Funny

      In South Australia, knowing where the white line is in the center of the road in relation to your car basically overqualifies him.

      Next they'll be telling me that this augmentation causes him to resist the urge to accelerate to fill the gap when I indicate to change lanes.

      Insanity I tell you, insanity.

    4. Re:Too bad he's in London by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, you must be confusing drivers with cops.

    5. Re:Too bad he's in London by Terrorwrist · · Score: 0

      Here in Rhode Island, those white lines you call them on the road are invisible lines now. Workers do not repaint them anymore it seems.

    6. Re:Too bad he's in London by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      South Aussies are a strange bunch, I fear for my life driving through that state :P (I have good mates in Adelaide)

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    7. Re:Too bad he's in London by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed and also in South Australia, drivers are dehydrated morons, just add water.
      Why does everyone in Adelaide speed up when you try to change lanes I wonder?

    8. Re:Too bad he's in London by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Not unless he can aim for the cane toads (http://www.teachers.ash.org.au/ozreading/activities/toad_rag.htm)

    9. Re:Too bad he's in London by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Here in Illinois you didn't even need that when former Governor George Ryan was Illinois Secretary of State.

      That's what he's in Federal prison for now. Ironic that a Nobel Peace Prize winner is in prison for a crime that resulted in horrible deaths, including burning a family with young children alive.

    10. Re:Too bad he's in London by infinite9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You ain't kidding. I went to high school in california and got my first driver's license there. During the driving test, you start with 100 points, then they deduct points for each mistake. If you get below 70, you fail. I ran a red light during my driving test and didn't use my turn signal during a u-turn. I passed with an 83. A friend of mine (a girl) passed with a 72. She backed over a mailbox during a three point turn.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    11. Re:Too bad he's in London by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Whoa.

      How can they pass someone who runs a red light, or backs over a mailbox?

      That's dangerous stuff. OK backing over a mailbox isn't usually that dangerous in itself, but it indicates a poor (and I say insufficient) level of vehicle control.

      I'm already thinking that a driving test should fail people who can't safely merge into busy highways (consistently).

      --
  7. Next Time, a Younger Brain by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much better the eye would work on someone with a younger brain, that can recalibrate itself better to the new signals coming from the new eye.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Next Time, a Younger Brain by humina · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much better the eye would work on someone with a younger brain, that can recalibrate itself better to the new signals coming from the new eye.

      The eye is not replaced. The stimulator is stimulating the nerve cells in the back of the eye which travels through the optic nerve to the optical cortex. Only the rods and cones and some of the intermediate layers of the retina are being bypassed. Your Brain has enough neural plasticity to handle these implants after using them for a while.

      --
      check out the best blog ever:
      http://oehlberg.com
    2. Re:Next Time, a Younger Brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that I put an abnormal brain into a seven and a half foot long, fifty-four inch wide GORILLA?

    3. Re:Next Time, a Younger Brain by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      As a geezer who once had a young brain and now has a acommodating lens in place of my left eye's natural focusing lens (natural ones stop focusing in your 40s), I can tell you -- none at all.

      You get farsighted in your 40s because the lens gets too hard to stretch. I had my implant at age 52 when I needed both contact lenses for nearsightedness and reading glasses for farsightedness. The only trouble adapting to being able to focus again wasn't with the brain, but with the eye's atrophied focusing muscles.

      Older brains don't recalibrate more slowly. The reason "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" isn't bacause the brain deteriorates, it's because to learn something you must first unlearn what you thought you knew, and we geezers have a hell of a lot more to unlearn than you young folks. I had a professor when I was in college who was fond of telling young punks "I've forgotten more than you've ever learned."

      Unless you have a history of alcoholism or have alzheimers, you'll still be mentally sharp in your nineties (except for "brain farts", which my mom calls "senior moments"), even though the rest of your body deteriorates. I suspect that the human brain is "over engineered".

  8. The Eyeball Singularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since they've gotten the eye-brain interface worked out, how long can it really take before artificial eyes are better than human ones? Technology increases exponentially, as a general rule.

    Myself, I'm looking forward to open source eyes.

    1. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by incognito84 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just want to have the ability to rotate my eyeball 180 degrees and look at my own brain.

    2. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You always read about people thinking along these lines, but it never comes to pass. For all its supposed faults, the human body is pretty damn good as is. Perhaps individual parts can be made better, but it usually comes at a cost. For instance, you can make a really strong bionic leg but you give up some agility. Maybe it is a catch-22 situation. Nobody is willing to give up an arm or leg to test new equipment, so they have to rely on injuries for an opportunity. My personal opinion is that this is one of those technologies like flying cars or nuclear fusion that is always 5 or 10 years away but is just never going to be practical.

    3. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by humina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since they've gotten the eye-brain interface worked out, how long can it really take before artificial eyes are better than human ones? Technology increases exponentially, as a general rule.

      Myself, I'm looking forward to open source eyes.

      Way way way far off. Your eye has layers that compress the data that is received from the light input and sent down the optic nerve. To get better vision the implant would not stimulate the retina, since the max resolution would be the number of rods and cones in your eye to begin with, and being able to do that is not happening anytime soon. You would have to directly stimulate the optical cortex itself in order to get visual perceptions of higher quality than your eye can produce. That would require you to know how the body encodes the data in the eye, routes it to the visual cortex, and then you would need to implant stimulators at every single spot in the visual cortex in order to get visual perceptions that are better than the eye. You also have to encode, wirelessly transmit and wirelessly power the whole system. You would be better off genetically engineering a better eye and attempting to implant that instead.

      I guess the short answer to your question is: not in your lifetime.

      --
      check out the best blog ever:
      http://oehlberg.com
    4. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You also have to encode, wirelessly transmit and wirelessly power the whole system.

      Yeah, I noticed the wirelessness in the video. (And a 30-second ad followed by a 36 second video -- really, BBC?)

      My first thought was to tag the story whatcouldgowrong -- why does it need to be wireless? How do you prevent someone from jamming it, or wirelessly broadcasting horse porn directly into your eyeball?

      (Yes, I know we can do this already using the visual spectrum. The difference is, doing it that way, at least you can turn away, tear it down, or find whoever's doing it and hurt them, badly. This way, I could have something in my pocket broadcast lemonparty to your eyes on the subway, and you'd never know it was me.)

      I mean, nothing against it if they're using strong crypto -- but even there, what happens if that crypto is broken within your lifetime? How do you update it, short of surgery?

      Of course, on the plus side, if you solve these problems, you can then broadcast whatever you want directly into your eyes, whenever you want -- forget clumsy VR goggles or "wearable" computers, just hook your eye up to your iPhone and go.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      You would be better off genetically engineering a better eye and attempting to implant that instead.

      Because that is far more simple than designing an artificial eye that is better than a normal eye.

      Anyway I think you misunderstand him. While it may be true that the optic nerve will bottleneck anything you send through, it's easy to imagine ways of still getting an improvement over the normal eye: night vision, infrared, UV, longer distance, microscope vision. None of those things would improve resolution but assuming they did the duty of normal eyes but also did those things, that would be "better" than a human eye. I for one would like to get a fake eye that could see an expanded spectrum, even if it were such that I had to switch between normal spectrum and, say, UV light because of optic nerve bottlenecking.

    6. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by shawb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FWIW, resolution is not the only thing that you can improve in an eye to improve on it. Just off the top of my head there is: focusing ability, range of light intensity, spread of IR spectrum and possibly refresh rate that could be improved on without increasing the resolution.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    7. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by geekoid · · Score: 1

      There is experimental research going on in reshaping cones via a laser.

      We are a lot closer to replacing the eye then you think.

      http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9394/PIIS0002939401013010.pdf

      Once stem cells become 'routine' changing the genetics involved would be the next logical(to me) research step.

      Of course, that doesn't answer the question of what happens if we can expand the freq. the optics can interpret? Would it just not work? would the brain see a new color?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problems with increased color sensitivity and refresh rate are as follows, from my understanding of the mechanisms and systems involved:

      Color Sensitivity: Each cone cell in the eye has a specificity toward production of a single color-receptor pigment. Humans have 3. (birds have 4.) Each color receptor pigment reacts within a specific band of the EM spectrum. That is all well and good-- BUT-- Each cone has a 1:1 correlation to a receptor neuron leading into the optic nerve. Thus, 1/3 of the physical resolution of your eye (for color vision anyway) is dedicated to red. 1/3 to blue, and 1/3 to green. (Rods are wired differently, and are located with greater concentrations in peripheral vision compared to cones, which are clustered around the center of the eye in the fovea.) If you start introducing more color receptor pigments, the total resolution of vision will drop because of physical space requirements. (The fovea is only so large, and so only N many cells can fit. The resolution of the fovea is N(cells)/Y(color pigments). You would have to make the eyes physically larger in order to avoid a reduction in visual fidelity when increasing the number of color pigments. (Or, you would have to make the fovea larger at the sacrifice of peripheral vision area, and reducing motion sensitivity and vision in low-light conditions.)

      Refresh Rate:
      Refresh rate of the eye is dependent on two things: The rate at which a specific color pigment can be excited and then lose the excited state, which is non-trivial, AND the rate of sodium/potassium charge/discharge that the optic neuron that the cell is attached to. Since "Detailed" color vision has a 1:1 correllation with cones and receptor neurons, it is the much slower neuron transmission speed which is the bottleneck. Rod cell vision (black and white) has a much higher refresh rate, because it connects multiple cells and multiple neurons into a receptor "cluster." If any one cell in the cluster is excited, the whole cluster returns true. However, this loses physical resolution because of the physical space issue. In order to reliably increase the refresh rate of an eye, you would need to improve both the color pigment component, AND improve the ion motility of the connected neurons. No small task.

      Combined, you'd end up with people looking like Anime characters, or Grey Aliens (Put your foil hats on!), and would certainly require some impressive feats of genetic engineering.

    9. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, isn't that how you see into your own soul ?

    10. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by mcpkaaos · · Score: 2, Funny

      You have to stare into Putin's eyes for that.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    11. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      I want a removable eye that I can continue to see from even if it's removed from the socket.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    12. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      How do you prevent someone from jamming it, or wirelessly broadcasting horse porn directly into your eyeball?

      That isn't on your wish list of things to happen before you die? Freak!

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    13. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just want to have the ability to rotate my eyeball 180 degrees and look at my own brain.

      Sorry, we only have the technology for the eye so far. Give it another 20 years and we might have a brain ready for you...

    14. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by mog007 · · Score: 1

      I'm the first one to say that technology is capable of shit that nature can't come close to, but we've had all kinds of technological advances as far as stuff like artificial joints go, and such devices are very good replacements, but they aren't better than the original equipment.

    15. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by shawb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As for refresh rate, I'll take that one... it was just a "possibly." I do believe that we'd have to learn a lot more about how the optic system as a whole works to be able to make anything work with this without a major upgrade to the neural pathways.

      As far as color sensitivity, I wasn't referring to adding more colors, but shifting the points where our color sensitivity lies. For instance moving the sensitivity of "red" cones to a longer wavelength would allow the viewer to see infrared. It is even conceivable that we would be able to switch which frequencies trigger the given neurons, allowing us to scan across the IR spectrum (within the capabilities of the detector) or have normal human vision. Whether a person would want to do this or society would be willing to find the resources to actually make these is a different question completely...

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    16. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by muridae · · Score: 1

      I'm always amazed that human vision sees so much range and tone in just under one octave range, while our hearing is tuned to near 10 octaves. Imagine the paintings that could come about if we could extend our visual range.

    17. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by timeOday · · Score: 1

      That was my thought. FLIR, or binoculars, could fall under a reasonable definition of "bionic eyeballs" if they were miniaturized and implantable. Contact lenses might qualify right now. Sure they don't amaze you because you're used to them, but to somebody 1000 years ago they would be positively miraculous.

    18. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Won't happen. I spent some time discussing such options with a researcher in the field when this was done roughly 10 years ago in the USA. (I have a blind programmer friend, so I paid close attention.)

      The brain does not get direct optical signals like a TV camera and television. There are multiple layers of fascinating processing that occur directly in the retina. before the signal ever gets to the optic nerve, including edge detection, motion detection, and color detection. In fact, the spread of current from these electrodes immersed in the salty, conductive vitreous fluid of the inside of the eye is so large that it cannot help but stimulate the nerves in far, far too large a region of the retina. This swamps the signals of the retina. You may as well try typing at a keyboard with basketballs. You might be able to guess what part of the keyboard got hit, but the balls are just too big to hit individual letters. And for the kind of edge and motion detection the eye does automatically, it's like trying to type sentences with capital letters and punctuation.

      The surgery is tricky, like operating on wet kleenex, and the risk of infection traveling to the brain is very real, so it's not something to do lightly.

    19. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      How do you prevent someone from jamming it, or wirelessly broadcasting horse porn directly into your eyeball?

      That isn't on your wish list of things to happen before you die?

      No, if I'm going to be skullfucked, metaphorically or literally, I'd rather it happens after I'm dead.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    20. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a date.

    21. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by DamienRBlack · · Score: 1

      I guess the short answer to your question is: not in your lifetime.

      You are assuming that a better eye necessitates better resolution; but even with the same resolution, digital eyes can be much better than biological ones. For example, imagine having a 200x zoom lens inside it that you can control be squinting the right way (or using a remote if that is too far fetched.) Imagine being able to feed other data into it, like television data. Imagine having a whole computer interface that can put a transparent HUD over everything and supply you with additional information and even interaction.

      Wow, this is making be really wish I was born 500 years from now, this'll all be so cool. Not that what we have now isn't cool, but you know, the grass is always greener. At least we still have a breathable atmosphere. Take that you crummy future cyborgs that have all this cool stuff.

    22. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by LiSrt · · Score: 1

      There's an old question - is the red that I see the same as the red that you see? - something that is probably unknowable.

      I imagine we'd still see the same range of colours, except they'd be assigned to a much greater range of frequencies - i.e. what appears to be red, is actually far infra-red with pretty much all of the traditional "visual" spectrum appearing blue/violet.

      Or it might all be random..., in any case I'd expect the brain to adapt to the new inputs well enough:

      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/esp.html

    23. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      No ads here. Which page did you visit ?

    24. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      It's a date.

      That deserves a mod point. :-)

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    25. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Actually, that depends on how plastic the brain is. If the brain can decode a wide range of encodings, then we could just throw all the different encoding schemes we can think of at it until one sticks.

    26. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Or more interestingly, how long until we have digital cameras using real eyes instead of lenses and sensors!

      Now look at the camera, smile and say "OMG is that a real eyeeeee?" *blink!*

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    27. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I got the same exact Priceline ad on both the page immediately linked to, and on the "how it works" page. Both were in the video, and thanks to Flash controls, utterly un-skippable or seekable.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    28. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      FWIW, resolution is not the only thing that you can improve in an eye to improve on it. Just off the top of my head there is: focusing ability, range of light intensity, spread of IR spectrum and possibly refresh rate that could be improved on without increasing the resolution.

      "Now then, uh, my optical system doesn't appear to have a zoom function."
      "No, human eyes don't have a zoom."
      "Well then, how do you bring a small object into sharp focus?"
      "Well, you just move your head closer to the object."
      "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?"
      "No. We don't have them."
      "You don't have them. Just the zoom? Hmm."

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    29. Re:The Eyeball Singularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming the current implants are already sensitive to 256 shades of grey and capabilities double every 3 years, I'd expect 24-bit RGB quality at around 1200x1200 resolution in ~50 years. I'm going to guess that average human vision is around 64 times better than that (given limits in the eye's ability to focus), which is another ~20 years. Assuming no major hiccups in development, anyways. So if you're ~30, you'll be celebrating your centennial trip around the sun by the time that happens.

      Then again, if this is the alpha version then it's possible there will be a burst of progress as the design is quickly revised to meet the current limits in technology, which might speed up the process by... maybe 10 years? You're still 90 years old by the time it happens.

  9. 73? Couldn't they find a younger candidate? by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    How much did this experiment cost? I don't wish to sound callous, but we waste too many health care dollars on people who have already lived a full life. The same money could be better spent on younger people where the return on investment is much greater.

    1. Re:73? Couldn't they find a younger candidate? by Ninnle+Labs,+LLC · · Score: 1

      This isn't some sort of normal treatment. The guy is part of a clinical trial testing this experimental procedure.

    2. Re:73? Couldn't they find a younger candidate? by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      Yeah. If they fuck up, no biggie really, after all, he's 73.
      You brain-damage or kill someone in their 20's though, or worse yet a kid and the lawsuits will be rolling in till they *would* have been in their 70's.

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
    3. Re:73? Couldn't they find a younger candidate? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you but I plan to live to 140.

    4. Re:73? Couldn't they find a younger candidate? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      And being able to replace body parts with technology is a step in that direction.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:73? Couldn't they find a younger candidate? by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Probably less than the luxury plane Ford maintains for the CEO to use when he goes begging for tax dollars.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    6. Re:73? Couldn't they find a younger candidate? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You might want to read the article and find out how much vision has been restored.

      You also might want to realize that at this stage ANY chance to do this experiment on anybody benefits the knowledge for all future research in this are, thus helping everyone.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:73? Couldn't they find a younger candidate? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Read TFA for one to see how wrong you are, and secondly, if you were a doctor and needed something to practice on, who would you pick? Really?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    8. Re:73? Couldn't they find a younger candidate? by evilsofa · · Score: 1

      Retinitis Pigmentosa is a progressive vision loss disease. The age at which it begins and the rate at which it progresses varies (and greatly), but generally speaking, the younger people haven't lost all of their vision yet, while the older people have. While some children lose all vision by their teens, many victims don't start losing vision until their 20s and don't go fully blind until quite late in life.

      This experiment will apply to younger people, but those younger people usually still have some vision left. It is far better to perform the experiment on someone who has lost all of their vision because they have nothing to lose if the experiment goes bad.

    9. Re:73? Couldn't they find a younger candidate? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How much did this experiment cost? I don't wish to sound callous, but we waste too many health care dollars on people who have already lived a full life.

      I'll be 57 next year, you insensitive clod, and yes, I've lived a full life and have fewer years ahead than behind. I've contributed to YOUR welfare all that time, kid.

      I had cataract surgery in 2006 and a Vitrectomy last April. You're saying that I should have just gone blind in my left eye?

      What an asshat. My "foes" list is empty but sometimes I'm sorely tempted, this is one of those times.

  10. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the title of the post is "Bionic Eye Gives Blind Man Sight" and the quote in the last sentence on the post is "I wouldn't go as far as claiming he regained his sight." WTG /.!

  11. Only 60 electrodes by dlevitan · · Score: 2, Informative

    From this press release this appears to have only 60 electrodes (and I assume only grayscale). This is definitely remarkable progress, but still nowhere close to achieving a bionic eye that can come even close to rivaling the real human eye.

    The question they're also answering (besides how well does this work) is how well can the brain interpret simple images into more complex images that would allow someone to get by in life. That may be as interesting, if not more interesting, than the actual experiment with the device.

    1. Re:Only 60 electrodes by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      From this press release this appears to have only 60 electrodes (and I assume only grayscale).

      So they wired a PXL2000 to his head. Awesome!

      Really, though, it is pretty cool.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  12. It's a lie by NovaHorizon · · Score: 1

    He can see more than flashes. It can see through clothing too. He's just not going to tell anyone about that affect so that the women who are looking in curiosity won't think anything of him looking... 'down'...

  13. Ironically by geekoid · · Score: 1, Interesting

    he lost his sight the same year the Six Million Dollar Man went off the air. Coincidence?

    why yes.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  14. Re:I wouldn't go as far as claiming he can see now by fractoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Congratulations, he's a human cockroach. :P

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  15. Great! by GNUThomson · · Score: 1

    Finally, I can remove all those "Don't stare into the laser with your remaining eye" stickers. Yay!

  16. Re:I wouldn't go as far as claiming he can see now by bencoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    just so that those slashdotters who didn't RTFA(i.e. everyone except those who read it earlier today off BBC's news feed) don't get confused, the parent post is a lie.

    They attached a microelectrode array to the retina of his eye, which stimulates based on a black and white visual input from a camera attached to some glasses.

  17. Warranty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it come with a life time warranty?

  18. REEEEEPOOOO MAAAAANNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    He'd better be careful about when they come to reposess when he can't make the payments.

    1. Re:REEEEEPOOOO MAAAAANNN by Technopaladin · · Score: 1

      Shilo is that you?

    2. Re:REEEEEPOOOO MAAAAANNN by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      I tried to watch that movie, and it was just awful, awful, awful.
      I really thought I'd love it, but it was just BAD.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    3. Re:REEEEEPOOOO MAAAAANNN by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Funny you should say that. I had a more expensive IOL than the traditional monofocal IOLs (CrystaLens acommodating lens) when I had cataract surgery in my left eye, and I had to pay the extra cash that insurance wouldn't cover up front.

      Best $1500 I ever spent! But yeah, no credit on it, they can't repo your eye's lens, even if it was made in a factory.

      PS- you will be assimilated.

  19. Re:Sig by djp928 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Because I believe the EU has rules against rampant deficit spending. We'd never qualify for admission.

  20. Future Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a long ways off but I wounder how long till bionic eyes have better sight then our biological ones. Should we have restrictions on which spectrum's of light were allowed to view or does it not matter. I'm sure it would even be (by then) easily able to interface with software.

  21. Qualifier - Must have had at one time vision by spineboy · · Score: 1

    In humans, the optic pathways form around birth, up until 1 year of age or so. If the baby can't see at all in that time, then the brain never "forms" those pathways, and so the vision part of the brain never develops properly.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Qualifier - Must have had at one time vision by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Perhaps so. But the visual neural system is highly adaptable once formed, even if sight is lost later. So even if you're correct that the patient must have had healthy sight at about 1 year old, if they were any younger than this 70 year old patient, they might readapt better to the new device. And also perhaps if they'd been adapted to the blindness for less than this patient's 30 years.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  22. Zoom by Krneki · · Score: 1

    What sound does it make when it zooms? I hope it's a good one.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  23. Re:I wouldn't go as far as claiming he can see now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope you were trying to be funny, because that isn't even remotely true. The motor cortex isn't involved at all.

    From TFA:

    "the receiver passes on the data via a tiny cable to an array of electrodes which sit on the retina ...When these electrodes are stimulated they send messages along the optic nerve to the brain, which is able to perceive patterns of light and dark spots corresponding to which electrodes have been stimulated."

  24. Ono-Sendai, or Zeiss? by billstewart · · Score: 2, Funny

    So was it the really good Swiss lenses, or the Japanese biotech ones that need to be replaced before your optic nerve rots?

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Ono-Sendai, or Zeiss? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Funny

      it's only good for 4 years.

    2. Re:Ono-Sendai, or Zeiss? by kohaku · · Score: 2, Funny

      I only do eyes!

    3. Re:Ono-Sendai, or Zeiss? by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      So was it the really good Swiss lenses, or the Japanese biotech ones that need to be replaced before your optic nerve rots?

      I think the bigger question would be if they're willing to work at the House of Blue Lights to GET the Zeiss-Ikons....

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
  25. Doing the laundry? by Gameface · · Score: 1

    Yes, but see what his wife has planned?
    From the article: "I've taught him how to use the washing machine and away he goes. It's just the ironing next."
    Almost better to let the wife believe that the eye doesn't work as advertised.

  26. ok... now for the MS jokes by purpleraison · · Score: 1

    Windows + electronic eyes = true Blue Screens Of Death.

    ...or how about excuses for the wife: "aw, sheesh honey, I'd love to take out the garbage, but they just released a 'critical update' for my eyes, and I need to reboot them"

    ...'you mean that wasn't your boobs I grabbed?? Damn eyes must be malfunctioning again"

    --
    I am open source, and Linux baby!
  27. Is this new tech? by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

    A few years ago, I dated a person that was friends with a person who was blind from birth. Apparently, he was also fitted with a device very similar to that in the article. However, he said (to her) that it wasn't much use because it only detected light patterns, not a full spectral field.

    So is this new tech, or any different from what's available now?

    1. Re:Is this new tech? by Cussin_IT · · Score: 2, Informative

      The advancement isn't in the attachment to the eye, but rather the machinerie of the device. The one that you're thinking of would have had a resolution of 4x4, meaning 16 pixels which where either black or white. If I understand corectly, this device has 60 pixels (about 7x7, it can't be square though) and produces some sort of grey scale (ether 16 or 256 both of wich beat 2). The thing is that they both interface into the optic nerve in the same way.

      --
      Read my blog you know you want to
  28. It is VERY impressive by Animaether · · Score: 4, Informative

    Seriously... from being *blind* (no vision at all, whatsoever, etc.) to not just having say a single signal (dark/light), or 3 signals (enough to determine some direction), but 60??

    That's enough not just to make out direction, but also movement.

    The only problem I see is that it's not quite like a photo in that it isn't a regular grid.

    The last I read about this, it went a little something liek this...
    They stick all N electrodes into the visual cortex and then activate them, one by one, and ask the user "is this point more left or more right than this one? Is it higher or lower?" The reason for this is...
    1. they don't know exactly -what- the user is in fact seeing.. they don't even know what 'direction' an electrode is actually giving a signal.
    2. the implantee was blind before. Giving them a single signal and asking them to point roughly into the direction of the illuminated blob they can 'see' is futile - they have no reference.

    Once done, they have a map of where the electrodes roughly are in relationship to eachother, as well as a map of which electrodes are weak, which don't work at all, etc. Only -then- can they hook it up to an imaging processor's output, and weeks of training the user begins. I.e. put a lightbulb right in front of them - what they might 'see' is an illuminated blob nearer to the lower-right of their 'vision', seen from our viewpoint. On the up side, if they have always been blind, they can easily be told that the illumination is coming from directly in front of them. If the implantee had lost his sight later in life, however, they're going to have to re-learn their visual processing.

    Regardless of all of these 'issues', it remains VERY impressive indeed that we can make some deaf people hear and some blind people see.. even if it's nowhere near the acuity of most people, -any- hearing/vision is an immeasurable improvement over -no- hearing/vision.

    1. Re:It is VERY impressive by TinBromide · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I read an article about how they strapped special glasses onto owls that flipped the world upside down. They found that it took the owls a few days to kill prey perfectly, but they got to within 99% of their prior abilities with the glasses on in a relatively short time (like a few days).

      When they took the glasses off the owls took a few hours to re-orient themselves to the original right side up orientation.

      Its been like a decade since I read the article or saw the documentary, but I remember commentary about how if they applied it to humans, there would be a similar learning curve.

      Who knows, if given enough time, they might not have needed to re-orient the points for the signal processing.

      I also remember reading that the only thing that babies can make out visually are bright spots and faces, but that was in a facial recognition article about how the brain has a hardwired portion that flashes bright when a face appears in its vision. (Its why we like looking through photos with people in them).

      --
      Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    2. Re:It is VERY impressive by _avs_007 · · Score: 1

      They already did this on humans back in the 1960's. In elementary school I remember watching a documentary in class. They had a scientist that made these goggles that did exactly that...

      I can't remember how long it took him to adjust, but I remember he was wearing the goggles for 2 weeks in each orientation.

    3. Re:It is VERY impressive by Ieshan · · Score: 2, Informative

      In fact, humans will also adapt under such circumstances. The first reports were as early as 1896, but we have a great video that we show our students in Psych 1 here at the University of Iowa that demonstrates a british student who wears world inverting specs for a week or so. At first, she can't do simple things like write her name or make tea, but later in the video it shows her sketching, riding her bike down a country road, and doing all sorts of other things that require visual perception to accomplish.

      It really is a remarkable phenomenon.

      But, see:
      http://wexler.free.fr/library/files/linden%20(1999)%20the%20myth%20of%20upright%20vision.%20a%20psychophysical%20and%20functional%20imaging%20study%20of%20adaptation%20to%20inverting%20spectacles.pdf

      -----

      But as to the "hard wired" face perception stuff, I think you might be on the wrong track there.

  29. Wow... Welcome to 2005!!! by wjsteele · · Score: 2, Informative

    Alan Alda did a show several years ago on Scientific American Frontiers called "Cybersenses" where he featured a guy who also had an "artificial eye" implanted. It used 64 electrodes (if I remember correctly) and they were working on one that used 1024.

    He was able to actually get enough information out of his that he could read letters printed on the wall of the building they were in. He also saw a "bright spot" when they went outside that turned out to be Alan's forehead.

    Bill

    --
    It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
    1. Re:Wow... Welcome to 2005!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alan Alda did a show several years ago on Scientific American Frontiers called "Cybersenses"

      The Cybersenses episode highlighted the earlier, 16-electrode device, while talking about (then) new research and other devices in development. The current clinical trial (and BBC article/video) is with a newer, higher-density device.

      Just so you know, developing any kind of complex medical device is a MANY-year, MANY-million-dollar undertaking. Requires deep investor pockets and lots of patience...

  30. Ah, finally. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An in-sight-ful article on /.

    Don't forget to tip your watchful waiters...

  31. Another misleading Slashdot headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I wouldn't go as far as claiming he regained his sight...

    But, Slashdot editors would.

  32. Like a cochlear implant by JeffTL · · Score: 1

    Cochlear implants have 22 electrodes or so, and the people I know who have them can generally understand reasonably clear speech with the implant. Obviously vision is in two dimensions and will take more signals to reach that level of utility, but 60 is well on the way.

    1. Re:Like a cochlear implant by domatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      22 electrodes in a cochlear implant would correspond roughly to a 22-bar spectrum analyzer. If each electrode gives a weaker or stronger signal in relation to audio intensity and only responds to a certain frequency range due to it's location in the cochlea then that is going have a bigger payoff than the same number of electrodes on an artifical retina where each electrode corresponds roughly to a grayscale pixel and said pixels aren't necessarily arranged in a neat grid.

      It doesn't surprise me that 22 electrodes suffices for a workable sense of hearing but only provides a very rudimentary sight.

  33. Is it really too much to ask? by epp_b · · Score: 2, Informative

    Instead of an "Holy Crap! The Blind Can See!" as a summary, is it too much to ask that you add half a sentence describing the specific condition that this procedure is capable of treating? "A man who lost his sight 30 years ago from retinitis pigmentosa, a group of genetic diseases causing retina degeneration, ..." would have been fine.

    Sure, I can click over and read the original source, but it's not so convenient sifting through paragraphs on the BBC's website when I'm reading this on my Pocket PC while sitting on the can.

  34. And it is improving by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    I believe I saw a special on this on Sci Am, they were using a 4x4 or 16 bit matrix.

    Looking at the how it works vid, I think I counted and 8x8 or 64 bit array. It's climbing up there.

  35. Re:Prozac by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

    RTFA. He is blind because of problems in his retina, not in his brain.

  36. Blurry by statute by snsh · · Score: 1

    Didn't the California Assembly require his artificial sight be blurry, so that he couldn't use Google Earth?

  37. Confucius say... by neko+the+frog · · Score: 1

    Bionic Eye Gives Blind Man Sight.

    --
    -- the opinions stated above aren't those of my employer. in fact, they're probably not even my own. you know what, ju
  38. Re:I wouldn't go as far as claiming he can see now by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    just so that those slashdotters who didn't RTFA(i.e. everyone except those who read it earlier today off BBC's news feed) don't get confused, the parent post is a lie.

    It's a joke, dumbass. A failed joke, apparently, since nobody thought it was funny (that's fine, I can deal with the occasional joke failing outright...) - but I thought it was abundantly ridiculous that it would be clear that it was in no way connected with reality!

    I just thought it was funny the headline was "Bionic Eye Gives Blind Man Sight" - and then it's like, actually, it lets him match socks and follow lines in the road. It just reminded me of those line-following robot kits.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  39. Re:I wouldn't go as far as claiming he can see now by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    No, he's wearing the IBM designed body armor.

  40. So, So, SO tired of these stories!!! by smchris · · Score: 1

    I'm not even blind and these stories make me crazy. Honest to Dog, I think I've read stories about this being tried once every decade since the '70s. so _WHEN_ will it be ready for prime time?

    Either that, or just give up on running a story on it every decade. Geez.

  41. crap... now the price of car air filters... by rivaldufus · · Score: 1

    will go way up due to demand.

  42. Yes but.. by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    Does it make this really cool sound?

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  43. What about this guy? by JoeRobe · · Score: 1

    They've tried something like this in the past, but never heard anything more about it. This new version is considerably less intrusive - in the old article from 2002, they had to implant electrodes in the guy's head through a port. And the old way actually bypassed the eye, whereas this new one actually uses what is still useful in the eye.

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
  44. Anonymous Coward. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bionic, Bionic Six, uhuh uhuh
    We are together. We fight for right
    Bionic, Bionic Six, uhuh uhuh

    Bionic-1/Ron Bennett - Father > Enhanced senses

  45. Behind the times by silentil · · Score: 1

    wow...this documentary was Discovery a little over 8 weeks ago and it only just made it here? For shame /.

  46. obligatory Shadowrun reference by Kargan · · Score: 1

    Sweet! How long before I can ditch my meat eyes and spend my hard-earned ¥ on some Zeiss models with integrated lowlight, thermographic and flare compensation? I got Essence to burn!!

    --
    Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
    1. Re:obligatory Shadowrun reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About 47 years, if I remember the timeline correctly.

  47. Eyes don't see. by Tatarize · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No. He's been blind a while. Even with people with transplants to completely restore vision take a while to be able to see. Just as cochlear implants take some time to make use of. The point you should take to heart is that eyes don't see, the brain sees. The device restores the sense triggering in his eye. That's a requirement for sight but none of the work. It's like fixing a camera lens and ignoring the fact that that camera itself doesn't have any firmware.

    He won't instantly have his vision restored. This is why people are supposing his vision will continue to improve. It isn't because the device is going to start working better but because his brain is going to keep wiring up better and better.

    Which brings us to Prozac which has actually shown itself to help with the plasticity of the visual centers of the brain. This is also why the original post noted that you should have a younger brain (more plasticity).

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  48. Evolution of the eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So finally we have a living human who can confirm that having the ability to see just some spots of light is better than not seeing at all. Hopefully this will get the people who can't understand how an eye could have evolved to change their mind.

  49. Re:I wouldn't go as far as claiming he can see now by bencoder · · Score: 1

    I think it just hit a bit too close to reality to be honest. They've done very similar things with animals, as a sibling post said(cockroaches). And in humans, similar things have been done for remote control: Remote-controlled humans.

    That's why it's not actually that obvious that you were joking.

  50. Alright, move over steve.... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    So, we are now in the age where bionics is a reality for things like eye replacement.
    I am very glad, however, I believe the next cool thing should be exoskeletons, too many people have lost abilities to being able to do many things (either old age, MS, parkinsons etc...)
    An exoskeleton would offer more power to be able to move around freely by thinking about it, and have the proper strength to carry out that action. Lifting a box (not one of 100lbs, but one of 20lbs.)
    would be easier for that older 70 year old lady.

    As well, crippled people in the case of Christopher Reeves, would have been able to walk.
    I hope there are more things out there we will be able to do for the good of mankind, this is definitely one of them though.

  51. Re:Fuck you you nigger piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have modded you troll but I'm out of mod points. I guess I'll just settle for getting modded -1 Troll.

  52. Not very new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've been working on artificial sight for a while. UC Santa Cruz and other schools/research institutions have been doing trials since as early as 2002. Here's a release from 2004 discussing similar results: http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/news/article?ID=1102

  53. Misplaced glasses by analogkid76 · · Score: 1

    Oddly, his glasses keep turning up in women's locker rooms.

  54. Re:I wouldn't go as far as claiming he can see now by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    I think it just hit a bit too close to reality to be honest. They've done very similar things with animals, as a sibling post said(cockroaches). And in humans, similar things have been done for remote control: Remote-controlled humans.

      And Spock's Brain - don't forget that!

    That's why it's not actually that obvious that you were joking.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  55. Re:Fuck you you nigger piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way I see it, I, the Anonymous Coward, godd mooded twice as troll and once as flamebait. I also decided, in one of y posts, that I was a troll and modded myself as such. Holy crap! Crazy stuff, heh?

  56. Old News by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

    52 Minutes into this National Geographic Invisible World video I first saw in the late 1970s or early 1980s. The brain to camera interface connector looks remarkably like the connector on a TV Picture Tube of that era.

    1. Re:Old News by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

      1970s or early 1980s

      If you squint at credits at end of video, you'll see that this technology existed in MCMLXXIX. 1979, or is that -1961?