Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chip Allows Blind People To See

Posted by samzenpus on from the bionic-eye dept.

crabel writes "3 blind people have been implanted with a retinal chip that allowed them to see shapes and objects within days of the procedure. From the article: 'One of the patients surprised researchers by identifying and locating objects on a table; he was also able to walk around a room unaided, approach specific people, tell the time from a clock face, and describe seven different shades of gray in front of him.'"

231 comments

  1. TOMMY CAN YOU SEE ME? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tommy? tommy?

    1. Re:TOMMY CAN YOU SEE ME? by tom17 · · Score: 1

      What?

    2. Re:TOMMY CAN YOU SEE ME? by ixidor · · Score: 1

      Tommy: See me. Feel me. Touch me. Heal me. http://www.lyricsdepot.com/the-who/were-not-gonna-take-it.html

    3. Re:TOMMY CAN YOU SEE ME? by tom17 · · Score: 1

      No

  2. Wow by DirtyCanuck · · Score: 4, Funny

    I didn't see that one coming.

    Hearing Implants?

    Nope never heard of them

    1. Re:Wow by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      I like your taste in humour.

    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't see that one coming.

      Of course, you haven't used the implants yet.

  3. In the land of the blind... by thijsh · · Score: 2, Funny

    La Forge is king!

    1. Re:In the land of the blind... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Once again reality has trumped Star Trek with an eye implant -- there's now no reason for La Forge to wear that visor.

      Reality trumped Star Trek with an eye implant before. McCoy gave Kirk reading glasses for his age-related presbyopia because he was allergic to the eye drops that soften the lens (they don't have those... yet). But they've been implanting mechanical lenses since 2003; I have one in my left eye. McCoy could have just beamed Kirk's biological lenses out and beamed the mechanical lenses in. I went from being extremely nearsighted and farsighted at the same time (age related presbyopia), wearing both contacts and reading glasses, to better than 20/20. Of course, since we don't have transporters, invasive surgery is required. This retinal implant would require even more invasive surgery.

      Of all the nerdy devices I have and have had, the implanted lens is my favorite.

      Give them time and this retinal implant may surpass normal vision like the lens implant does.

      Oh yeah -- you will be assimilated! Resistance is futile!

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    2. Re:In the land of the blind... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      LaForge does have ocular nerve implants. The visor is a replacement for his eyes. (Further, he grew out of it in the later movies.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:In the land of the blind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the last TNG movie, La Forge did have eye implants replacing his visor.

    4. Re:In the land of the blind... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Except La Forge can see in color...and all through out the spectrum.

      It's pretty well established that the teleporter isn't used for medical uses... usually.
      Now I have no idea WHY they don't. From it's description, using the teleporter should allow them to fix anything in the body, including aging.

      OTOH, it was a series of moral plays, not a predictor of the future.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:In the land of the blind... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I work with someone who can't accept anesthesia of any kind found so far. Either her BP drops, or she starts throwing up while unconcious, or her heart almost stops, or she develops a terrible rash from the numbing items.

      I assume (outside of movie reality) that for some reason, none of these techniques would work for Kirk or he was unwilling to undergo them. So... glasses.

      I had lasik in 1997? 1998? It has been FRAKKIN AWESOME!!!!! Never regretted it for a second.
      I can SEE at the beach. When I stop a downhill ski run I don't get fog on the inside of the glasses, fog on the outside of the glasses, and fog on the inside of the goggles (effectively blinding me in seconds). I never lose or worry about losing glasses. My nose and back of my ears never hurts after being up 18 hours. There's no ongoing expense of glasses.

      For me (but not for everyone), eye surgery has been one of the best decisions of my life (I was -6.5, that's about 20/400).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    6. Re:In the land of the blind... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      or the use of the holodeck/hologram like they used once in voyager.

      i still love in Stargate Atlantis - once given transporters - they did the obvious.. beam a nuke over to the enemy ship.. star-trek would never have done that.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    7. Re:In the land of the blind... by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      i still love in Stargate Atlantis - once given transporters - they did the obvious.. beam a nuke over to the enemy ship.. star-trek would never have done that.

      Some captains would. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Dark_Frontier_(episode)

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    8. Re:In the land of the blind... by HazMathew · · Score: 1

      And then he was just referred to as "That guy from reading rainbow".

    9. Re:In the land of the blind... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i'm kinda lost - i don't remember her ever beaming a weapon directly to an enemy ship.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    10. Re:In the land of the blind... by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      I've always thought the same thing about the Force. Can't they just Force pull on some brain stem or spinal cord? *shurg*

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    11. Re:In the land of the blind... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Wasn't his visor wideband, in that he could see FIR through UV?

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    12. Re:In the land of the blind... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      It was established at some point that you can't beam through shields, so beaming a nuke into an enemy ship only works if its shields are down.

      And at that point, you've pretty much won the fight anyway.

      Unless, of course, you're not used to thinking three dimensionally....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    13. Re:In the land of the blind... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      TNG had a few times people used subspace transporters - they where bad for the user but worked.. if it's a one off thing.. send a nuke..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    14. Re:In the land of the blind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthokeratology

    15. Re:In the land of the blind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some star trek fan you are. perhaps you should see all the moves and read all the books.

    16. Re:In the land of the blind... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I don't think any Jedi ever used their force-telekinesis on the inside of something...Vader's force choke is ambiguous but could be squeezing on the outside of the neck. Maybe they can only push/pull on the outside of solid objects.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    17. Re:In the land of the blind... by Ceiynt · · Score: 1

      Darth Bane squeezed his father's heart until it stopped using the force. This was before he was trained in the force, so he was neither Jedi nor Sith. Given that, It could be assumed that any force user could do that, but it takes a lot of energy, and if used against another force user, they'd have a hard time. Source: Darth Bane: Path of Destruction.

    18. Re:In the land of the blind... by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      If Yoda can lift an X-Wing out of a bog, he can definitely scramble some organs at will. Force Choke is a waste of time. It's time for some Forced Retardation.

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    19. Re:In the land of the blind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trumped? Are you kidding? The visor and later ocular implants that were portrayed in TNG were suppose to provide better than human vision, what with being able to see well outside of the human spectrum.

      This real life device, as exciting as it may be, provides only rough outlines and 7 shades of grey.

      No, we have a LONG way to go before we get Star Trek level tech.

    20. Re:In the land of the blind... by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      The link provided will help spur your memory. =) It happens in Act 1.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    21. Re:In the land of the blind... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      you know i read it yesterday - and completely missed it.. i had forgot about that.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    22. Re:In the land of the blind... by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Forgive my stupidity, but can you give a link for this? I have the same condition as you, cannot wear contacts, and don't trust laser surgery (look what happened to Ned on the Simpsons).

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    23. Re:In the land of the blind... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      CrystaLens; ask your eye doctor about it. Its primary use is for cataracts, but my surgeon said they'll implant them for other problems (myopia, presbyopia, astigmatism). If you have cataracts, insurance will pay for most of the cost, but insurance won't cover it for other corrections.

      I journaled about the experience here.

      If you're severely nearsighted, laser surgery can't bring you up to 20/20 anyway; there just isn't enough cornea to remove.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  4. I can't see any comments... by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I can't see any comments - do you think I need to try the device from the story?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. This is not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Previously, not allowed to be done in USA, but there are a few think outside the box doctors in Third countries
    doing eye implants and brain implants to achieve much the same thing. It is just another variation of cochlear - 20+ sensors Vs Pacemaker = 1 or 2 flying leads.
    But eye? Infection control is the 'secret' that must be mastered if you hope to hold onto the device.

  6. Not a cure (for blindness) by Manip · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just to clarify in case you didn't RTFA this isn't a cure for all forms of blindness. Unfortunately we still aren't at the point of being able to clip a camera on to people and having their brains understand that input directly. But it does somewhat mitigate forms of blindness which are directly associated with the eye (as opposed to the image processing centre which is a common form of blindness). But that being said, this is HUGE. We can cure several kinds of blindness or at least mitigate it. The quality of life increase to the people who receive this new medical technology will simply be like night and day.

    1. Re:Not a cure (for blindness) by janek78 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Could you supply a source on the "[...]image processing centre which is a common form of blindness"? As far as I know, and yes IAAMD, eye-related conditions are by far the most common cause of blindness, whereas cortical blindness represents only a small fraction of the total blind population (significant, no doubt).

    2. Re:Not a cure (for blindness) by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Yes I think the OP is lumping congenital blindness with acquired blindness, where I assume the latter is much more closely related to injuries or diseases to the eye.

    3. Re:Not a cure (for blindness) by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      We can cure several kinds of blindness or at least mitigate it.

      There's an implantible mechanical lens that cures nearsightedness, farsightedness, astigmatism, and cataracts. Almost everyone who gets them gets near normal, normal, or better than normal vision.

      But if there's nerve damage, or damage to the visual cortex in the brain, that's still incurable.

      I wonder if this implant would help someone who had a detached retina and didn't get a vitrectomy soon enough? I had to undergo a vitrectomy, and it was a week and a half of hell (journal entry about the eye surgery). This surgery would surely be worse, and would involve a vitrectomy.

      In case you don't want to read the link, they remove the vitreous fluid from your eye, smooth down the retina, and fill the eye with nitrogen gas. You have to look at the floor for a week or two until the eye replaces the vitreous and the nitrogen bubble goes away.

      Pray you never need this retinal implant they're talking about in TFA! Cataract surgery is a piece of cake, a vitrectomy really REALLY sucks. I would imagine it's better than a scleral buckle, though.

      Oh, and here's a bit of bad news for most of you -- if you're severely nearsighted, you're in danger of a detached retina.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    4. Re:Not a cure (for blindness) by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that there are more cases of blindness resulting from brain trauma (auto accident, etc) than congenital. Congenital blindness from birth is rare, blindness from injury to the eye or brain is not.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    5. Re:Not a cure (for blindness) by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I have a concern. The articles states zero effect on those people where the disease had progressed too far before the implant. I see nothing about this implant that will prevent further progression...
      So whose to say after getting the invasive (and expensive surgery) - it won't just stop working in a few years when the disease gets bad enough anyway ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    6. Re:Not a cure (for blindness) by operagost · · Score: 1

      I was severely nearsighted: up to a 5.75 diopter at one point. Presbyopia's slowly taking care of that, as I'm down to a 4.75 and still dropping. :-/

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Not a cure (for blindness) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5.75 is not severely nearsighted. Try a 12 (me) or a 14 (my sister). And a new lens is nice and all but it does nothing to help with damage to the retina from scarring or tearing. Problems with the lens have been solved you're right, but that doesn't mean there aren't a shit-storm of retinal problems that can make it very difficult to see, especially as your brain guesses at the missing information in damaged areas. It causes a weird kind of unsureness to everything you're looking at.

    8. Re:Not a cure (for blindness) by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they will be trying this out on people with Macular Degeneration; since this is a major cause of vision loss in aging people. And there is a huge demographic who are about to enter the age group that this mostly affects (i.e. the boomers are getting old). It would help in their (and possibly all of our) care if they could all see properly.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    9. Re:Not a cure (for blindness) by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Presbyopia will only help a little, then you'll be both nearsighted and farsighted at the same time. You'll wind up with bifocal lenses, or a CrystaLens implant that cures myopia, presbyopia, astigmatism, and cataracts.

      Age-related presbyopia comes from the lens of the eye getting too hard to focus.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    10. Re:Not a cure (for blindness) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      define IAAMD
      Intelligent Artifact from Advanced Micro Devices?
      wtf is up with people like you writing with fscking acronyms ;/

    11. Re:Not a cure (for blindness) by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

      the linked article is not well written in my opinion. But more information is available.

      the full text of the base article is available under creative commons license if you chase links and find the right link. Try this http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/11/01/rspb.2010.1747.full

      I think the short answer is that when not used the visual nerves and processing are repurposed. If you live in complete darkeness for many years (not using these nerves) they can go domant and not useable even if there is nothing mechanically wrong with the eyes.

      so there seems to be two effects here. The retina stops detecting light and thus stops sending signals. The nerves stop being used. the brain stops paying attention to the nerves. If the signals are started again but too late, they are ignored. This is how I understand the full article after a breif skim.

      They are using this as treatment for both RP and Macular degeneration. I have not finished reading the full text yet.

    12. Re:Not a cure (for blindness) by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      Ummm.... I Am A Medical Doctor? How hard was that? If you have enough brains to create your silly AMD acronym, surely you have enough to make the transition from Lawyer to Medical Doctor.

  7. This is actually pretty cool by kurokame · · Score: 5, Informative

    Firstly, it's probably going to be 50 years before this turns into an actual medical procedure rather than a proof-of-concept experiment. Let's just get that out of the way.

    So what they're doing is taking people with a defective retina, and adding a synthetic one. The retina normally receives photons and sends a signal along the optic nerve. What they're doing is implanting a silicon photoreceptor behind the retina of people whose retinas aren't doing the job. The chip receives the photons and sends an electrical signal, serving the same function as a "healthy" retina to some fidelity. The results are sort of low-fi since (a) it's just a proof of concept trial, and (b) the retina is a horrendously complex photodetector so it will take a lot of work to approach that in an implantable device. But dude, blind people. Seeing. Go, science!

    1. Re:This is actually pretty cool by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      We don't even need to match the quality of retina - even a hugely restricted sight, say a 50x50 black/white pixel sensor would be a life-changing experience to blind people, if that was available for mass-production and they could actually afford it.

    2. Re:This is actually pretty cool by fredjh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I recall seeing something like that (low-res BW "implants") at least 5 or more years ago. Someone was actually able to drive a car around a parking lot with one.

      This just seems like a more advanced version, and unlike another poster, I think they should start implanting these now. Why make people wait for more trials? What's the worst that can happen? The person is already blind. This is one of the things that bothers me about the FDA; if people are willing to take the risks to get a "cure" now, they shouldn't be stopped.

      But even still, once surgery to correct lens shape was allowed, that procedure really took off... it didn't take 50 years for it to become commonplace. Certainly this is more invasive, but once it's approved, I really doubt people will let that stand in the way... after all, people who were nearsighted could still see with corrective lenses, but now we're talking about people who can't see at all.

      --
      Stupid, sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:This is actually pretty cool by am+2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think they should start implanting these now. Why make people wait for more trials? What's the worst that can happen? The person is already blind.

      Well, I'm a complete noob when it comes to medical stuff, but I can think of three things:

      • Permanent damage to the nerves, removing the option for using any future improved version of this implant.
      • Brain damage, since this implant has a direct connection to the most sophisticated instrument known to man. Just send a few milliamps too much over there and it's partially fried.
      • An infection, killing the person (since you can't just cut off the head like it's done with arms and legs in extreme situations).
    4. Re:This is actually pretty cool by plastbox · · Score: 1

      I would have you check out Sensory Substitution. I feel I'm ranting on about this every time something like this comes up and no one cares. Why is that? The TVSS (Tactile Visual Substitution System by WiCab) provides its users with a 20x20 grayscale image and the Forehead Retina System provides 512 taxel (tactile pixel) vision, all with no surgery. In addition, the BrainPort (also by WiCab) can be hooked up to an accelerometer to provide a sense of balance to people who's inner ears have been damaged. Hell, one can even add new sensory information through some existing channel (f.ex. FeelSpace), and the brain will integrate it thanks to sensomotoric correlations. The blind can already see. We've had the needed technology since Dr. Bach-y-Rita started experimenting with cameras, solenoids and sensory substitution in the 60's.

    5. Re:This is actually pretty cool by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are extrapolating linearly.

      For reference, 50 years ago integrated circuits were still brand new.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:This is actually pretty cool by maxume · · Score: 1

      Brain pacemakers are an often used treatment option for things like Parkinson's disease.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:This is actually pretty cool by heathen_01 · · Score: 1
      Obviously bad things can hapen, nobody is denying that. The point is

      if people are willing to take the risks to get a "cure" now, they shouldn't be stopped.

    8. Re:This is actually pretty cool by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      50 years seems rather a long estimate. Considering Kidney transpants have only been around just over that long and it's been an actual medical procudeure for several decades, I'm surprised this is suffciently complex that it would take so much longer to perfect.

    9. Re:This is actually pretty cool by Faerunner · · Score: 1

      Ok, but a tactile input system or a forehead system is always going to be conspicuous, will always require an adjustment period while the brain re-learns how to deal with the input, and just isn't as freaking awesome as retinal implants.

      Yes, sensory substitution -works- but it clearly doesn't work very well because I don't see any blind people using it right now. What does it cost? Is it covered by insurance? If I went blind I'd rather stay blind than pay several thousand dollars to strap something to my forehead every day, just to see dull shapes and colors. I know what it's like to be nearsighted and not be able to pick out fine details without getting -really- close, and if I had to choose between blindness and poorly rendered, poorly colored tactile vision rendered by a forehead strip that made me look like a star in a bad 80's technothriller, I think I'd stay blind and hold out for an improvement in the tech.

      Of course, I'm not blind. While I'm pretty nearsighted and can't read what I'm currently typing from more than a foot away without my glasses, I can get around just fine without them if I'm not required to drive. I once worked for a week at a girl scout camp without them (they broke) - performing all my regular duties, and even learning to recognize my co-workers across a field full of people without needing to see their faces. But that ability also means I've never had to navigate completely without sight except by choice (like walking to the bathroom for a drink at 3am). I assume many blind people would enjoy the chance to see, but I can only assume no one's that excited by huge sight-replacing devices with 512 "taxel" resolution*, except as a step toward better things.

      *I've tried to imagine this and even asked Google to come up with an image that showed what this might 'look' like and come up with nothing, so I can't even compare it to my own nearsightedness as far as clarity of the image and how useful it would be - anyone have an example?

    10. Re:This is actually pretty cool by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It won't take near that long. I expect it to be pretty common in the next five years, and as sensor resolutions go up the people getting the surgery will have better and better vision. In fifty years people who get this implant will probably have better than normal vision. Hell, by then they'll probably be able to see in the dark.

      It is low resolution now, but low resolution is a lot better than blindness.

      Unless you're as old as me, you can't imagine the progress science and technology makes. When I was a kid, a computer took a whole building to house, and wasn't even as powerful as a cell phone. There were no microwave ovens, VCRs, few TV remotes (they were expensive and unreliable, and worked using ultrasound), no lasers, and there was no way I could ever hope to not wear glasses, as I was extremely nearsighted.

      When I broke my arms at age seven they used automotive starting fluid as an anesthetic. Believe me, that stuff is nightmarish. It was a completely different world back then. Today is like science fiction to me.

      We can no more imagine what the world will be like in fifty years than I could imagine cell phones, doors that opened by themselves, DVDs, flat screen monitors, and all the other stuff my kids grew up with.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    11. Re:This is actually pretty cool by pacinpm · · Score: 1

      Problem is you have to be able to assess the risk. We can think about some thing as relatively low risk but in fact they could be dangerous.

      But I agree with you that final decision should be left to patient.

    12. Re:This is actually pretty cool by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      There are medical studies going on right now, that are so important to me that I half considered investing a significant portion of my money (all of it really) in order to COPY what they are doing now.

      For some conditions, people could not care less about the risks of the cure because the problem is several orders of magnitude worse.

      Not my issue, but I've had Migraines, bad ones. But it's only 2-3 times per year (They can last 24 hours though). I've heard of some people who get them 2-3 times per WEEK! (Again, talking about real migraines here which some people don't understand how debilitating they can be.) At 2-3 times per year, I've often had pain so bad that I considered removing the flesh from my skull to be preferable.

      2-3 times per week and I'd be dusting off my 12 gauge.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    13. Re:This is actually pretty cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A friend of my parents has that. She apparently now has her entire skull wired up in electrodes (I believe they're just below the skin, but they're wired through her chest to a battery pack she has to carry or something. She had something similiar with migraines although I don't remember the details.

      Anyhow it's been working great for her, although there's a pretty decent risk of infection due to the nature of the implants (thankfully she's had it going on a year now without incident.)

    14. Re:This is actually pretty cool by Amouth · · Score: 1

      50 years before we can just go get one? yea ..

      proof of concept? no .. the proof was done several years ago with 1 person and if i remember right the resolution was either 9x9 or 10x10.. this is 1500 dots so at least 15x the resolution.

      this is the next step - and i'm sure there will be plenty more.. you just have to take them one at a time.

      to many people want to leap into the future and have what we can image now - but you can only do it with baby steps along the way.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    15. Re:This is actually pretty cool by clone53421 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can only assume no one's that excited by huge sight-replacing devices with 512 "taxel" resolution*, except as a step toward better things.

      *I've tried to imagine this and even asked Google to come up with an image that showed what this might 'look' like and come up with nothing

      What I found indicated that the 512 taxels are arranged in a 32x16 grid (a 4x2 arrangement of 8x8 separate electrode grids).

      Obviously it’s tactile, not visual, but I took an image off google images, reduced it to 32x16, grayscaled it, and scaled it back up using the Sinc (Lanczos3) method. This was the result.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    16. Re:This is actually pretty cool by ultranova · · Score: 1

      In fifty years people who get this implant will probably have better than normal vision.

      At which point it's your brain's ability to process the incoming information that's the limiting factor. I wonder if covering the inside of your skull with electronics and interfacing auxiliary processors into brains might be the next big thing?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    17. Re:This is actually pretty cool by fredjh · · Score: 1

      But I agree with you that final decision should be left to patient.

      That's all I'm saying.

      --
      Stupid, sexy Flanders.
    18. Re:This is actually pretty cool by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      which point it's your brain's ability to process the incoming information that's the limiting factor.

      Well, my implant (a mechanical lens) gives me better than 20/20 vision, but I probably have a bigger visual cortex than most.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    19. Re:This is actually pretty cool by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      But dude, blind people. Seeing. Go, science!

      Only like 2000 years late. Go God!!

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    20. Re:This is actually pretty cool by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I've received one of these transplants, and I can categorically state that they cause no brain damage amage amage amage amage whatsoever.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    21. Re:This is actually pretty cool by Faerunner · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that's really useful!

      It's actually only slightly worse than my uncorrected vision where clarity is concerned (the cars in the original image look almost as blobby without my glasses as they do in the taxel image with my glasses on!), but seeing in full color makes a big difference in depth perception and pattern recognition. If I didn't have the reference image I would have difficulty telling what that greyscaled set of blobs really was. I can't imagine that being too useful in situations where there is a lot of visual info to process. Maybe in a very clean, very bright room it works well... it's a start!

    22. Re:This is actually pretty cool by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      My left eye is much worse than my right eye... with my left eye there’s not much difference (apart from one having colour) between the top and bottom images from about 30 inches (fairly normal viewing distance). By comparison, with my right eye it’s probably closer to 48 inches before the difference in clarity is unnoticeable.

      However, that image takes up only a fraction of my viewing range, so it’s really a couple of orders of magnitude worse – that’s actually all you’d be able to see.

      It’s obviously nowhere near good enough to drive, but given the choice between total blindness and that, I’d take it. It would be enough to navigate on foot, at least enough to avoid obstacles and stay on the sidewalk.

      Bonus points if it has an infra-red camera so I can see in the dark...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    23. Re:This is actually pretty cool by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

      Very very few people have had sight restored after living completely blind for most of thier lives. They do not do very well after sight is restored. It generally cuts life expectancy.

    24. Re:This is actually pretty cool by Trogre · · Score: 1

      That's a well done example there, though I believe once motion is introduced (even at 10fps) the scene will become easier to recognize.

      Anyone care to apply the same filter to a 20 second video clip?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    25. Re:This is actually pretty cool by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's an animated gif using the same technique.

      http://yfrog.com/fxlowresmuybridgeracehorsg

      --
      Last post!
    26. Re:This is actually pretty cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it clearly doesn't work very well because I don't see any blind people using it right now

      That's OK - they don't see you either.

    27. Re:This is actually pretty cool by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      I downsampled a face to 50x50 grayscale to see if it would still be recognizable. If you add in natural eye twitch and its ability to increase effective resolution, I'd say the answer is probably yes -- someone could learn to tell faces apart with this device. Would it be good enough for reading a sign? Probably not. But something as simple as being able to tell the difference between a stopped car and a moving one is a game-changer.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  8. First Wu-Tang by LaminatorX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Light is provided through sparks of energy
    from the mind that travels in rhyme form

    Givin sight to the blind

  9. ST TNG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lt. Jeordi LaForge get ready

  10. We are the borg... by andr00oo · · Score: 1

    We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own

    1. Re:We are the borg... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I've already been assimilated. Resistance is futile? You'll BEG to join us if you're in a wheelchair needing a new hip, or blind from cataracts needing a new lens, or if you need a pacemaker.

      Most cyborgs are geezers.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  11. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What will become of Daredevil?

  12. What is it, exactly? by Nirvelli · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Abstract has more technical details, such as the fact that this chip is externally-powered, and has a "38 × 40 pixels" resolution.

    1. Re:What is it, exactly? by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's about what my old Apple 2 computer would do. You could play Zork on your own retina..

    2. Re:What is it, exactly? by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 2, Funny

      The last time there has been an article on the subject, we were at 9x9 pixels. I can infer that some parallel can be made with the general speed of progress in electronics and expect that within a quick decade it will be hi-res and not require too much power to be implanted with day-long batteries.

      Also, inductive charging is quite an elegant solution in this context: no gore, all the joules.

      --
      You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
    3. Re:What is it, exactly? by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can infer that some parallel can be made with the general speed of progress in electronics and expect that within a quick decade it will be hi-res and not require too much power to be implanted with day-long batteries.

      Why not simply use a small fuel cell and generate power from glucose and oxygen from bloodstream?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  13. we did see it coming, no? by Adolf+Hitroll · · Score: 0, Interesting

    but what I'm waiting for is the answer to the Molyneux problem...

    --
    Smile, don't click...
  14. "I see..." by pinkushun · · Score: 1

    said the blind man to his deaf wife.

    1. Re:"I see..." by bakamorgan · · Score: 1

      ...who was petting the paraplegic dog...

    2. Re:"I see..." by lavacano201014 · · Score: 1

      ..."It all comes back to me as I piss into the wind."

      --
      A wise man once said, "Where is my other quotation mark?
    3. Re:"I see..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as he picked up his hammer and saw.

  15. Seven shades of grey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how would you describe a grey shade?

    1. Re:Seven shades of grey? by Looke · · Score: 1

      Count them, or compare them to eachother?

  16. 1 picture, 1000 words by Statecraftsman · · Score: 1

    1500 diodes, making a rate of 0.67 words per photo diode. Stunning, simply stunning. Also, marvelous.

    1. Re:1 picture, 1000 words by Cwix · · Score: 1

      1500 diodes /1000 words = 1.5 diodes per word doesnt it?

      Lets double check.. If we have 1000 words and we give each word 1.5 diodes, we would have a total of 1500 diodes.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    2. Re:1 picture, 1000 words by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Yes, 1/1.5 = 0.67

      You're doing diodes per word, he's doing words per diode.

    3. Re:1 picture, 1000 words by Cwix · · Score: 1

      My bad, and my apologies to the GP hadn't had my coffee yet, and misread it.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    4. Re:1 picture, 1000 words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your conclusion uses incorrect math to reach it - by that count punching a blind person in the face if something is in front of them would be worth 1000 words (divide "number of words" by the single binary element of the punch.)

  17. People that 'went blind' by splutty · · Score: 4, Informative

    One caveat that seems to be missing in the summary, is that this was done with people that used to have normal eyesight, which degenerated into blindness.

    Obviously the fact that the brain already recognizes shaped, forms, and knows how to 'see' makes a huge difference.

    For people having been born blind, this sort of research might eventually help, but this would take all the visual stimulation and training that a small child gets as well, with brains that are not that of a small child, so will take a long time to adapt, unfortunately.

    --
    Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
    1. Re:People that 'went blind' by simoncpu+was+here · · Score: 1

      Who knows, the child's brain may adapt better to the low resolution images. The child's brain may develop some sort of anti-aliasing capabilities.

    2. Re:People that 'went blind' by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      One interesting caveat: eye projects the image on the retina upside-down and it's sent as such to the brain. The flipping is done fully "in software" and supposedly occurs only a few weeks after the child gains sight. It would be interesting to observe this effect in adult humans.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:People that 'went blind' by am+2k · · Score: 1

      You have to start somewhere though.

    4. Re:People that 'went blind' by am+2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I remember seeing a documentary of a study that did exactly that about twenty years ago... That person wore glasses 24/7 that flipped the image upside down. It took a while, but he adapted to it just fine. The problem was that when he took them off afterwards, the image was flipped again, so he had to go through all of it again :)

    5. Re:People that 'went blind' by matfud · · Score: 1

      The experiment has been done with glasses that flip the scene before it enters the eye. After a few hours most adults don't notice much difference.

    6. Re:People that 'went blind' by delinear · · Score: 4, Informative

      Earlier than that - George Stratton was doing this one-hundred and twenty years ago. His experiment involved covering one eye and inverting the image in the other (the apparatus he used at the time was too heavy to do both eyes 24 hours a day). He found after 4-5 days everything looked the right way around, but if he concentrated on objects they would reverse. Other than that he could move around and operate as normal. Upon removing the device it was only a few hours until his sight returned to normal.

    7. Re:People that 'went blind' by am+2k · · Score: 1

      To clarify, I saw that documentary twenty years ago. It was black&white without sound, so I guess it was the same study you dug out. Nice find!

    8. Re:People that 'went blind' by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Who knows, the child's brain may adapt better to the low resolution images. The child's brain may develop some sort of anti-aliasing capabilities.

      It does more than that. Take yourself for example. You do know that there is a rather significant blind spot right in the middle of your vision right?

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    9. Re:People that 'went blind' by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      There has been animal research on this indicating that animals (cats, iirc) prevented from seeing from birth throughout their childhood mental development will not form the neural structures required to actually use their eyes, and that adaptation to correct this problem in adulthood is not possible.

  18. Appropriate? by SultanCemil · · Score: 3, Funny

    So is it wrong to goatse someone within a day of the operation?

    --
    Cemil.
    1. Re:Appropriate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no more than one-man-one-jar-ing him

    2. Re:Appropriate? by ZaphDingbat · · Score: 1

      Probably not. They won't recognize it.

  19. Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think I will go to the chippie for lunch. Hungry.

    I really thought the article was about food when the title hit my RSS reader.

  20. Appropriate? by SultanCemil · · Score: 0

    So is it wrong to goatse someone within a day of them being able to see for the first time, ever, in their whole life? They said they can see shapes.....

    --
    Cemil.
  21. Evolution, not revolution... by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

    This, as my post title suggests, is not a revolution. It's an evolution of the existing tech. We've seen this before, but the achievable resolution is increasing. There's another project in Germany I read about recently where they're working on colour
    Don't get me wrong, this is amazing work, and another step on the road to full Geordi's VISOR-like treatment for people that have an optic nerve but non-functioning eyes, but it's not a "new" thing, merely another refinement in the process

    When the resolution achieves life-like levels, and we have control of a full gamut, so technically infra-red vision (or ultraviolet etc.) can be switched on or off, put me down for one. I'm tired of glasses and deviating vision...

    --
    The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
    1. Re:Evolution, not revolution... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd be quite interested in one that is not based on daylight. Think of it as input device, taking, say, HDMI signal on input, and outputting the video directly to optical nerves. Attach an external camera, or a computer, or a remote camera, or a video player... skipping the middle-man of display-light-eye-retina and feeding video data straight to the optical nerve.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:Evolution, not revolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait to see (pardon the pub) fully texture-mapped vision like this where you could upload replacement textures to the onboard computer and have it inject them on-the-fly. You'd rather that brick wall look like wood panels? Done. Don't like the color of your car? Changed. Tired of seeing billboard ads? Ad-blocked. Love your wife but hate her face? Jessica Alba'd.

    3. Re:Evolution, not revolution... by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 1

      Your brain isn't adapted to processing high resolution imagery across your entire retina (and your optic nerve probably can't handle that much information anyway!). You have a small region of fine detail in the center of your vision; resolution decreases quickly as you move away from that area. You're probably unaware of this because your brain fills in the gaps already.

    4. Re:Evolution, not revolution... by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      So maybe not HDMI (which would be wrong in any case) or it's ilk, but a design standard designed for the brain, with a neural interface to dictate what's in focus etc. instead of the retina.

      We've already gotten good enough brainwave-reading to control a mouse cursor, or select menu items (or raise the wee ball thingy on the Star Wars Force toys), so this would be the way to go.

      A visual interface on the retina/optic nerve. An "out" port on your head, so you can wear a camera array (a la Geordi) so you get stereoscopic vision, maybe even with infra-red, thermographic and other options, and then you can take the visor thing off and jack straight into a terminal, controlling the focussing bit using a neural-headset.

      Fantasy? For the moment. Resolution isn't anywhere near high enough for a computer display, and we've not gotten colour yet, so it's still in the realms of "helping the blind to see". But when it gets good enough, I'd sign up for it. Being able to see perfectly at night with just a tap of a button? Being able to interface on a whole new level in a computer system? Awesome.

      If they could somehow develop the interfacing part in a way that allows you to retain natural vision as well (if you're not blind) this could make it's way into a great many places...

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
    5. Re:Evolution, not revolution... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Seems like the right job for the device drivers.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    6. Re:Evolution, not revolution... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      No way, I still need my analog hole!

      Just what we need. HDCP in my eyeballs.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    7. Re:Evolution, not revolution... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The retinal implant won't help if you're nearsighted or farsighted, or have astigmatism, but you can get a lens implant that cures all three of those. It costs about $6-7,000 per eye.

      But it is invasive surgery. They stick a needle in your eye, send ultrasound down it to turn your eye's lens to mush, suck it out, and put the mechanical lens in through the needle.

      It doesn't hurt, but it does kind of freak you out when they stick the needle in your eye (they don't knock you out for the operation).

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    8. Re:Evolution, not revolution... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      I'd keep the better of my eyes bio.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  22. Blinding by Mike+Mentalist · · Score: 1

    I wonder how someone who has been blind all their life would actually go about describing colours and objects in this instance. When you talk to someone who is partially colour-blind you end up pointing at things asking what colour they see.

    And they look at you as if you are an idiot...

    --
    I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
    1. Re:Blinding by Megane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As someone who is partially color blind, and has taken the "paint pots" test, I can tell you that it effectively only affects shades of brown. In other words, colors that we don't normally have names for.

      The paint pots test is where they put 30 or so 1 inch round thingies on the table with a color sample on top, and you have to arrange them in order of slightly changing color. There are two points around the circle where brownish colors will be the same for those with partial (protanomaly or deuteranomaly) color blindness, or at least that's how it went for whatever form I have. Two of them seemed identical to me, so I think I ended up making a lopsided figure eight.

      And someone who has been blind all their life will have had that part of their brain repurposed to increase the other senses, and have no experience with eyesight, so they probably won't even be able to process the visual cues that let you easily identify depth in a photograph.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:Blinding by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      My dad has a red/green color deficiency. A red light and green light look identical to him; top means stop and bottom means go. He got a ticlet in Arizona once for running a red light that had been installed upside down. He complained loudly when they changed the color of stop signs from yellow to red, as a red stop sign is pretty much invisible to him if it's in front of bushes or other greenery.

      He sees colors, but different colors than most people. His color deficiency makes me wonder -- if I had an eye transplant and the part of the brain that sees transplanted from a normally sighted person, would the colors be the same? Somehow I think not.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  23. Pretty cool. by annex1 · · Score: 1

    It's about time this begins! :D

  24. Ah, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see what they did there.

  25. Yay for Chip! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, that certainly is nice of him.
    I always liked Chip, he's a swell guy.

  26. What's the catch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every silver lining has a cloud. Next week get ready for "Retinal chip causes aneurysms in the blind". Seriously, this sounds like science fiction.

  27. It's a miracle! by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stories like these always make me think of how science, technology and development delivers so many of the things promised but undelivered by religion. This story, healing the sick and making the blind see again, is an actual, real miracle, and an awesome one at that. Religion, in contrast, offers only false hope and perhaps some comfort for unfulfilled promises and a harsh reality. And yet so many millions pin their hopes on imagined gods, not human spirit and ingenuity. It continues to baffle me.

    Even the most extreme things promised by religion, eternal life and/or an immortal soul, might be deliverable in some form by science one day. We can certainly create a paradise for ourselves. Compared to how the people who first imagined today's religions lived, one could argue that many of us are already living in paradise (or some beta version of it at least) and it's within reach for every human on earth, regardless of religion, if we continue to produce our own miracles.

    1. Re:It's a miracle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [A]n actual, real miracle. . .

      It's not a miracle. It's science.

    2. Re:It's a miracle! by foniksonik · · Score: 0

      How many of the miracle workers you describe are religious do you think? How many of them stand on the shoulders of religious people? What motivated those people to do the work of miracles rather than sod off and make money investing in real estate or some other margin related business?

      Religion is more than a promise to an imaginary deity, it's a promise to your fellow man to do good works.

      I attend church every Sunday and I've yet to see a miracle there but I do see lots of good people reaffirming their intent to participate in the greater good and seek out ways they can be a better person. That's just 1 hour on a week mind you. The remainder is spent working towards those intents as best we can.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    3. Re:It's a miracle! by wed128 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That is the most sensible interpretation of modern organized religion I've ever read. Thank you.

    4. Re:It's a miracle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The remainder is spent working towards those intents as best we can.

      ... by hating gays.

    5. Re:It's a miracle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I look at my place - a pretty cheap one - there's heating, food, i can wash etc and when i'm bored learn stuff on internet. it's not really a very wealthy place and so on by any mean, it's sub average to be honest.
      But if I compare to what people had 100y ago, it's luxury, paradise, however you call it.

      So yes there's a lot of bad in this world but technology does deliver a lot.

    6. Re:It's a miracle! by Toze · · Score: 1

      Sorry to use a 4chanism here, but;

      Implying the religious wouldn't consider this a miracle.
      Implying the religious think human ingenuity and its results aren't miraculous.
      Implying the religious subscribe to the same mutual exclusivity between faith and science that you do.

      There are some religious people who see miracles in toast and wonder how magnets work, sure. There's some religious people who perform neurosurgery, too, and subscribe to a scientific view of the world. Evidently being religious doesn't actually require the surrender of all mental faculties. I know Christian doctors who describe successful childbirth as simultaneously miraculous and the result of good science. The same doctors contribute money to soup kitchens or the education of African orphans, which they ascribe to both their own action and to religion as a motivator. They have a different view of the why than you, while maintaining an even better understanding of the how; maybe accusing all religion and its adherents of stupidity and lies is too broad a brush to paint with.

      u mad, bro?

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
    7. Re:It's a miracle! by ZaphDingbat · · Score: 1

      ...by following the man-made precepts of an imaginary deity who promises to send all peoples who don't follow it to certain doom.

      It's possible to get people to help others without lying to them.

    8. Re:It's a miracle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too bad that once some of those people walk out those church doors, they seem to forget their promise.

      I live off a road with 3 churches on it within a few miles. Last Sunday I watched as people from at least two of those churches drove past a young lady on the side of the road changing a tire. How many of those parishioners with that fresh promise to "be part of the greater good" stopped? Not a one. After a few min I walked over and helped her.

      So often the religious like to proclaim that they are good people doing good things for people who need help, so often the same people don't do anything besides drop a 5 in that collection plate.

      Remember that most of the Christians you allude to, who are, according to you at least, the ones we should thank for this wonderful technology did not do this to help people, they did this to help their own savings accounts.
      So please stop sucking your own dicks. Its rather grotesque.

    9. Re:It's a miracle! by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      I know the parent is trying to contrast religion and science but you folks truly believe this "...eternal life and/or an immortal soul, might be deliverable in some form by science one day"? And this: "one could argue that many of us are already living in paradise and it's within reach for every human on earth" - are you kidding me? I'm not sure about you but my idea of paradise doesn't require robo-eye, iPad, new drugs or internet. With these war, hunger, climate, economic issues, we're living in paradise? And reaching every human on earth??? Honestly, only richest of the rich has access to the best technology available to enhance their lives because they can pay for it. Tell this to the 3rd world countries people. I'm not diminishing what science has accomplished to enhance live but holy cow, claiming as if it can solves all the world's problem sounds just like blind faith and whatever that "religion" the parent defined as. Modders - insightful? My goodness...

    10. Re:It's a miracle! by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 1

      The miracles of a religious neurosurgeon are still the result of human ingenuity and spirit. Her religious explanations of why adds nothing to the miracle of saving someone's life through brain surgery.

      But you have a point in that religious people still can contribute to non-religous and real miracles. I didn't mean to imply that they don't. Of course many do, but still I don't see what positive contributions come from religion, besides personal motivation. Religion seems to cause much more problems in this regard.

    11. Re:It's a miracle! by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 1

      Religion isn't necessary for good morals or motivations, but sure, it can provide that for people. But religion isn't simply a system of morality or a philosophy for living well. It's the other parts of religion, like supernatural mumbo-jumbo, dogmatism, willfull ignorance and such, that bothers me.

    12. Re:It's a miracle! by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 1

      There are good evolutionary explanations for altruism. Religion isn't ncessary for morals or good behavior.

    13. Re:It's a miracle! by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder how people in an actual paradise would feel. Would they long for some kind of hyper-paradise, with more blissful bliss or raunchier orgies?

    14. Re:It's a miracle! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Someone defending religion with logical fallacys. Shocking.~

      Many of those people do it because the want to improve the world. No god is needed for that. The idea that it's 'do works or make money' is a logical fallacy based on ignorance.

      Many, many people do good without any need for your fiction.
      Who is really moral: The person who need to remind themselves to do good for the people who don't need to congregate in order to do good?

      It's like you only do good out of some sort of guilt or make it a contest.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:It's a miracle! by Khazunga · · Score: 1

      It's all a matter of perspective. You don't have to be the richest of the rich to access telecommunications, and this would be considered part of any paradise ancient people would design. The same can be said for self-powered movement (engines of any kind), computing, or fast long distance transportation. Are we in a paradise yet? Not by a long shot. Are we -- the average human on earth -- better than a thousand years ago? Of course!

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    16. Re:It's a miracle! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And it's completely wrong.

      I challenge you to find one church that doesn't focus on hating something as a way to generate money.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:It's a miracle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People do look to the heavens for help and are sometimes healed. Jesus did lots of miracles and people loved him. But the reason he did them was to fix the soul. He knew that was the real problem and I believe you would agree. Christians believe that God made the universe, the laws of nature, and everything.He gave us the tools to do this stuff. I agree we live in "paradise" now. However, the human soul is the same (or worse) now than ever. Have you ever surfed the web?

    18. Re:It's a miracle! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That was a good comment, thank you. I have experienced miracles, or if the athiests prefer, wildly improbably coincidences. I'll recount one here.

      A couple of years ago the church I attended had people in the congregeation take the microphone and tell of something they praised God for. I took it one day, recounted how God gave me a surgeon to give me better than 20/20 vision after wearing coke bottle glasses all my life.

      The sermon the preacher had prepared was about Jesus healing the blind man.

      That night that eye's retina tore, and within an hour it was completely blind. The lord goveth, the lord taketh away...

      Wierd coincidences like that happen to me so often there's no way I could disbelieve in God. There is no "imaginary" to God; I tell you now, he's real. I have no doubts whatever.

      I did get my sight back, thanks to another skilled surgeon.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    19. Re:It's a miracle! by Toze · · Score: 1

      Your tempered response is gratifying.

      I agree that her religious explanations of why don't affect the how. In fact, that was my point; it seems to me much more a question of philosophy. There have been raging asshat stoics and subtle, brilliant stoics. Why blame stoicism for either?

      I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say that you don't see what positive contributions come from religion. Many of the modern church's positive social effects are not headline news, while of course every alarming thing a Christian (or gamer, or homosexual, or whatever) does is immediately reported by the media because it's entertaining. If you want to find positive religious contributions, you'll probably have to go a couple of churches and ask them directly. Most of the ones I know, for example, have benificient funds used to secure housing, utilities, and food for single-parent and low-income families, and many churches I know of actually build housing for the same. Most send missions to Mexico to dig wells and build houses or schools. They're not perfect- lots of people in the same churches are mean, or bitter, or small-minded- but they're not evil.

      You will rarely, if ever, hear "Church digs well, provides fresh water to community of 500" on the news. You will often hear "Christian psychotic shoots up abortion clinic," for the same reason that you'll hear "gamer shoots up high school" rather than "PAX raises $x0,000 for Child's Play." You have to either be involved, or do some digging, to discover the everyday, positive things that any organization or community is involved in.

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
    20. Re:It's a miracle! by precariousgray · · Score: 1

      I think there was a time when religion served a purpose for humanity, or at least was in some way pivotal in paving the way to the modern age.

      That time has passed.

      --
      not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
    21. Re:It's a miracle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank God for science!

    22. Re:It's a miracle! by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      Feel free to stop by my church and try to find that hate. It's simply not there. Nor is the greed you assume we all have.
       
      http://hopegilbertsville.org

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
  28. Chip Allows A Small Fraction of the Blind to See by DryGrian · · Score: 0
    From TFA:

    This technology could change the lives of patients with retinitis pigmentosa - a degenerative eye disease affecting approximately 200,000 individuals globally.

    Not quite as earth-shattering as it appeared.

    --
    For optimal comment enjoyment, take red pill now.
  29. Having a shitty morning, but this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    brightened my day, no pun intended. Truly, we live in an amazing time, thank Science.

  30. Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ill belive it when i see it

  31. i see. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dskha;l

  32. Not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pictures, or it didn't happen.

  33. Meh by c0mpliant · · Score: 1

    I'd still want Geordi's visor!

    --
    There is no -1 disagree
  34. Mice by dintech · · Score: 4, Funny

    I assume pre-tests were done on 3 blind mice? /ducks...

    1. Re:Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes,they did a blind test on them...

    2. Re:Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mickey, Minnie, Mortimer, and Donald?

    3. Re:Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Blind_Mice

    4. Re:Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three? Countless mouse brains were spent in the process. You can't imagine.. maybe can you imagine? Have you ever been in those laboratories? It assembles hell's kitchen quite well. I visited such kind of laboratory once when I studied computer science.

  35. Pre-trials by dintech · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I suppose pre-trials were done on 3 blind mice?

  36. Wild. by Spit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not much of a step from here to arbitrary, computer generated input.

    --
    POKE 36879,8
  37. Not good enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... to post to Slashdot apparently.

  38. fristpsot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can finally see the keys

  39. how soon to working Tleilaxu Eyes? by dltaylor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=74

    1. Re:how soon to working Tleilaxu Eyes? by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      > Tleilaxu Eyes?
      Probably never when they find out the reality of axlotl tanks.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  40. Derp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like good news

  41. Impressive by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In all honesty, This amazes me, the fact that we have reached a point where we understand enough about both the brain, and computer hardware, that we are able to use hardware to correct problems of this detail and magnitude. Going from totally blind to being able to read a clock has to be an amazing experience.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    1. Re:Impressive by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Going from coke bottle glasses to reading a clock on the wall without them is indeed an amazing experience. I marvel today, four years after the surgery.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  42. Didn't see that one coming... by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

    Maybe i should get one of those

  43. Ears? by paimin · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Cool! Now can I get some new ears?

    --
    Facebook is the new AOL
    1. Re:Ears? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was that? Speak up!

    2. Re:Ears? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are implants for the deaf.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    3. Re:Ears? by Kentari · · Score: 1

      The equivalent device for the ear already exists for many years. It is called the cochlear implant.

  44. Neato by ChinggisK · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a lot more than just "shapes and objects" suggests.

    1. Re:Neato by delinear · · Score: 1

      I saw some footage on the news and it certainly seemed like the guy could distinguish objects to a reasonable level - he was able to point out which was the fork when various similar sized items of cutlery and other objects were laid out in front of him, and to not only read his name (okay, it was in pretty big letters, but even so pretty cool) but also spot that they had spelled it wrong (ironically they'd missed out an "i"). Early days, clearly, but even being able to perceive this level of detail after being completely blind must seem amazing.

  45. Obligated Star Trek reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I welcome our new Borg ocular-implant overlords.

  46. In 50 Years, we'll have hollographic Dellusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    projected into our mind by electromagnetic induction into our cerebral cortex, and Smellivision. The article plainly presumes that the Host for this procedure must have existing Vision nerves to the Complex Nervous System (brain) in order for this to be achieved. To be actually born blind, consider an Earthworm or a Jellyfish; this procedure is geared more for people with a verry usual range of Degraded vision or at a certain level of impugned development since achieving Berth.

    Also for those of you that consider Science FICTION, La Forge was using the advanced non-implant form that I described above, not a chip implant. Surgery is for suckers. The Brain visualizes electrical signals assembled by receptors collecting reflective Light: we should skip all this anti-Christian technology that just wants to install Silicon into our Brains. We need a Subliminal Message Machine with a Tin-foil hat to prevent spontaneous advertising of subliminal messages from others around us: wake me up in less than 10 years.

  47. One more step to the mind-machine interface. by _0rm_ · · Score: 1

    Amirite?

    --
    Boredom is bliss.
  48. Quick! Close the analog hole! by tommituura · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now, how long do you think that it'll be until someone at the various copyright lobbies wants to force a macrovision-like drm technology in there just because someone might someday include video recording capability into artificial eyes?

    1. Re:Quick! Close the analog hole! by delinear · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, those in countries without free healthcare might be able to pay for their treatment by agreeing to have ads displayed via their implants...

    2. Re:Quick! Close the analog hole! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Speaker? Is that you?

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  49. Question by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    How long can you go without subconsciously rubbing your eyes?

    1. Re:Question by Khazunga · · Score: 1

      You can go as long as needed. I did LASIK a few years back, and with corneal surgery you can't rub your eyes for what amounts to eternity (I guess it was a couple of months). Anyhow, past the initial couple of weeks, when you must keep that standing order forever present in your brain, it falls out of habit and you never ever do it (except when asleep, a situation that requires special protection).

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    2. Re:Question by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Pretty long; I've had two eye surgeries, and was strictly informed that rubbing the eyes before they healed was very dangerous.

      I'm pretty sure that this surgery would include a vitrectomy, which is what they do for a detached retina (my second eye surgery).

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  50. Yeah, yeah by smchris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems like one researcher or another has been twiddling with technologies like this now and then as one-off's for literally DECADES now. Will it ever make it into an on-going clinic?

    I got an "insightful" for my jaded disillusionment the last time /. reported on one of these experiments, what, maybe five years ago. Can I get another "insightful" for still being disillusioned that these "cool hacks" will ever see production?
     

    1. Re:Yeah, yeah by Toze · · Score: 2, Informative

      iirc, the experiment 5 years ago had a 2X2 pixel resolution that allowed the patient to distinguish between light and dark. This is a considerable improvement. So yes, it will make it into clinical practice. Eventually.

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
    2. Re:Yeah, yeah by geekoid · · Score: 1

      look around. Most of your life is filled with the end results one-offs. Former prototypes on Proof of concepts.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Yeah, yeah by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They got it to the point where these folks are no longer blind, so I would expect it to happen in five years or less.

      Note, however, that this isn't a panacea that will cure all blindness, just one form of blindness that only hits 200,000 out of the world's seven billion people.

      What's really amazing is a CrystaLens implant. It's an artificial, mechanical lens that replaces the eye's natural lens, and it cures myopia (nearsightedness), presbyopia (farsightedness), astigmatism, and cataracts. Millions could benefit from that innovation, which was approved by the FDA in 2003.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    4. Re:Yeah, yeah by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Apparently, yes!

      People invariably make over-the-top claims about this and every other scientific advance. This won't cure every blind person in the world by next Tuesday, sorry. That doesn't mean, however, that being completely jaded is justified. This is a fantastic step forward in man-machine interfaces. A blind man can now read the time off a clock. This is a progression from those experiments you were so jaded about last time. What will the next set of experiments give us? Colour? Will you still be jaded then?

      --
      Is 1563649 a prime number?
  51. Correct, evidence from cochlear implants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For people having been born blind, this sort of research might eventually help, but this would take all the visual stimulation and training that a small child gets as well, with brains that are not that of a small child, so will take a long time to adapt, unfortunately.

    Right. Kids who receive cochlear implants at very young ages (best before 5, preferably around 1) and are enrolled in schools mostly focused on speech and hearing (rather than sign) tend to show dramatic results. Most of these kids are mainstreamed into their local school districts in the kindergarten/first/second grades with limited (if any) instructional support. Using the phone with no assistance is pretty typical.

    People, like my wife, who are pre-lingually deaf and receive cochlear implants later in life don't fare nearly as well. The language centers of the brain have developed and you've missed the window for dramatic gains. They still help, but she'll always need captions and alternatives to the phone.

    1. Re:Correct, evidence from cochlear implants by splutty · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      A lot of research has been done into sight/hearing/language, and the ideal age to do this is before 8 years old.

      At that time the actual structure of your ear (drums, hammer, etc) will have evolved in such a way as to maximize what sounds you need to hear. (The 'joke' of chinese people not being able to pronounce an 'R' is actually not a joke, but the very simple result of there not existing an 'R' sound in the chinese language, so they simply can't hear it, because their hearing has never been attuned to it)

      The same goes for vision and focus, although the most accute part of that is before 1.5 years old (If my memory served me right), after which it gets a lot harder to get used to altered vision, lesser vision, loss of colour perception, etc.

      So the earlier you can catch people with problems in these areas, the more chance you have of them actually developing 'normal' sensory perception.

      For some interesting reading on this and other things, look up the popular science writers Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, who worked with Terry Pratchett on a book called 'Science of the Discworld'. Funny read to begin with if you like Pratchett's books, with a fair bit of actual science in it (and references to scientific publications)

      --
      Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
    2. Re:Correct, evidence from cochlear implants by ChrisMP1 · · Score: 1

      ...but the very simple result of there not existing an 'R' sound in the chinese language, so they simply can't hear it...

      Either you used a very unfortunate choice of words or you have no clue what you're talking about. Pretty sure I can hear my car run and my dog bark, even though my language doesn't include engine sounds and barking.

      --
      <sig>&nbsp;</sig>
    3. Re:Correct, evidence from cochlear implants by splutty · · Score: 1

      What exactly does that have to do with the sound of the letter R say in 'rice'? The human brain and ears do something utterly different with spoken words than with background sounds.

      Although sometimes that leads to funny mixups, and people hearing the voice of the devil in music being played backwards...

      --
      Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
  52. Descriptive by toj · · Score: 1

    How do you describe a shade of grey?

    1. Re:Descriptive by snookerhog · · Score: 1

      by comparison. This one is darker than that one and lighter than this third one.

    2. Re:Descriptive by delinear · · Score: 1

      They probably mean he was able to differentiate seven shades of grey.

    3. Re:Descriptive by toj · · Score: 1

      Probably, but I thought it interesting in the context of "how do blind people imagine colors?". Maybe I'm just nitpicking, but I wonder how a more elaborate description of a grey shade could be phrased. Something more descriptive than "lighter than that one, and darker than that one"...

  53. Chip allows blind people to see by homesnatch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Way to go, Chip! I always liked that guy...

  54. Finally! by Muckluck · · Score: 1

    I am so sick of the robotic overlord's monotone voice reading my /. stories to me. I guess he better start looking for other work. Evil henchman, anyone...

    --


    --I like turtles...
  55. Even so by AdamsGuitar · · Score: 1

    While this is certainly true, it's only meaningful for a single generation of people after its widespread acceptance. Once the procedure becomes commonplace, there would be no reason (barring either financial or barriers or the occasional oddball religious objection to medical care) to wait until someone is an adult to perform this.

  56. Meh sounds like what NCSU and Johns Hopkins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    started work on back around 1993 or 1995.
    Look for Wentai Liu.

  57. One Small Step by schn · · Score: 1

    Closer to assimilation. Resistance is futile.

  58. Game Boy Resolution by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

    For comparison, the original Game Boy had a screen resolution of 160x144 in four greenish shades. Still, even 38x40 is an improvement over past retina chips and starts to be useful. I wonder what aspect ratio these things will end up with.

    --
    Revive the Constitution.
  59. Tagged by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Geordi

    --
    Support my political activism on Patreon.
  60. Re:Chip Allows A Small Fraction of the Blind to Se by eriqk · · Score: 1

    It might be earth-shattering for approximately 200,000 individuals.

  61. Human sight develops in the first 4 months of life by mrnick · · Score: 1

    The wiring for sight is developed during the third and fourth month of life. If the visual system is not stimulated during this time, the ability to form the connections for sight are lost forever.

    So unless you catch it at birth then it would be too late for people born blind. If it was caught at birth babies minds are able to adapt the way they process new stimulus much more efficiently than do adults.

    Though this is a great breakthrough for people who loose their sight later in life do to some kind of physical damage of the eye.

    Nick Powers

    --

    Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
  62. Cool beans by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    First time implants for the eyes, it was a long time coming, now I just can't wait for the first underground operation of these to
    upgrade the eyes to see in xray or something...

  63. This has been studied in humans by wanax · · Score: 1

    Pawan Sinha runs Project Prakash which goes into rural areas of India where treatment for congenital cataracts is not generally available. They do the surgery, for free, and in some cases ask the recipient whether they would like to contribute to the research program, which tracks how patients learn to see after the surgery [pdf]. The oldest person to receive the surgery was 29, and has had limited recovery of visual acuity. Children under the age of 6 typically have excellent prognoses following the surgery. See Pawan's TED talk here.

  64. Save Blind Culture! by narcc · · Score: 1

    Why is it these "scientists" always take the medical view of blindness? Being blind is great!

    Evil devices like this are designed to do only one thing: Destroy blind culture.

    --
    Required reading for internet skeptics
  65. good info by ganesh.rao · · Score: 1

    I like such news. Big break through!