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."
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.