Slashdot Mirror


Electronic Contact Lens Displays Pixels On the Eye

An anonymous reader writes "The future of augmented-reality technology is here — as long as you're a rabbit. Bioengineers have placed the first contact lenses containing electronic displays into the eyes of rabbits as a first step on the way to proving they are safe for humans. The bunnies suffered no ill effects, the researchers say."

42 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Strange Coincidence by jenic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A strange coincidence that I happen to be reading Rainbows End right now.

  2. ooh pick me pick me by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've been dreaming about this since forever.

    If they can work CCDs into them too so they can function as an eyetap I'll sell everything I own except maybe my truck to get them. (gonna need a new portable computer to go with anyway)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:ooh pick me pick me by KingMotley · · Score: 2

      Now all I need is software to recognize my wife and overlay the image of Natalya Rudakova, Milla Jovovich, Kristen Stewart, Jordana Brewster, Ali Larter, Tara Reid, and Olivia Munn depending on the day of the week, and they will have the best selling product of all time. Oh wait, perhaps they should make it recognize the wearer's wife, cause I don't want every guy on the face of the planet oogling over my wife you perves!

    2. Re:ooh pick me pick me by wiedzmin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For every hot woman on the planet, there is a guy who is sick and tired of banging her. It's not the fact that his wife may be ugly, it's just that she's his wife man.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    3. Re:ooh pick me pick me by loufoque · · Score: 2

      You watch TV shows too much if you want that kind of woman for a wife.

    4. Re:ooh pick me pick me by rakaur · · Score: 2

      Kristen Stewart is better looking than your wife? Geeze, dude. I'm sorry.

    5. Re:ooh pick me pick me by rakaur · · Score: 2

      That'd be because of biology. It makes the most sense to bang as many women as possible as far as evolution is concerned. Men are thus driven to bang every (attractive to him) woman that he hasn't already banged.

      Monogamy makes no sense for our species. It's a religious construct.

    6. Re:ooh pick me pick me by Kielistic · · Score: 2

      It's a social construct. And one that almost certainly has chemical/emotional and evolutionary backings. Ever noticed how people get jealous? Human infants are helpless and useless for years and require constant care. The spray the seed and run approach makes no sense for our species. Not if you want your offspring to survive.

    7. Re:ooh pick me pick me by willy_me · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hence the 4 year itch. Breakups frequently occur after 4 years - the biological time between insemination and the time a child/mother pair can survive without the assistance of a male. It's amazing how our instincts affect our daily lives without us even realizing it. We like to think our decisions are rational when in actuality, they are guided by biology.

    8. Re:ooh pick me pick me by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      What Keilistic says. It's a social construct. Most religions reinforce that social construct, but marriage seems to have preceded the major religions. How many tribes have ever been discovered that did NOT have nuclear families? Everything that I've ever read indicates that all the North American natives had nuclear families with a Mom, a Dad, some grandparents, and the kids. Can't blame that on Jehovah, or Allah, or whichever name you choose to use.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:ooh pick me pick me by mdielmann · · Score: 2

      Your statement is correct from the man's perspective. Until the last two hundred years, what made sense from the woman's perspective? A partner who could provide food, shelter, and protection until the child's safety was no longer a significant burden on the mother. Monogamy, at least for a period of time, makes sense from the mother's perspective.

      No one said the evolutionary drives for both sexes had to be the same. Assuming such is a critical flaw.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  3. Re:This makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read the article - contact lens is a fresnel lens

  4. No ill effects until by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Funny

    The bunnies suffered no ill effects until one researcher rickrolled them (purely in the name of science) and well we can't post the footage of what happened then but use your imagination and then add more blood.

    1. Re:No ill effects until by ByteSlicer · · Score: 2

      More likely, until they were dissected to look for any ill effects...

  5. No ill effects, but can they see them? by impaledsunset · · Score: 2

    I mean, the eye can't focus that closely, so the lens would have to project an image that appears to be coming from further away, or be aimed in such way that the current focus of the eye doesn't matter, and it always enters the retina at the right spots.

    1. Re:No ill effects, but can they see them? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Correct. Fortunately, this doesn't add greatly to the difficulty of the task. In any case, the first task is proving we won't put somebody's eye out with this thing. Getting a really nice looking picture comes later, since it pretty much requires putting it in a human eye (rabbits are lousy at describing what they're seeing), which requires us to know we won't be hurting said humans by doing so.

    2. Re:No ill effects, but can they see them? by kanto · · Score: 2

      Getting a really nice looking picture comes later, since it pretty much requires putting it in a human eye (rabbits are lousy at describing what they're seeing), which requires us to know we won't be hurting said humans by doing so.

      Queue augmented reality carrots.

  6. Re:This makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    From TFA comment:

    To focus the light on the rabbit's retina, the contact lens itself was fabricated as a Fresnel lens - in which a series of concentric annular sections is used to generate the ultrashort focal length needed.

  7. RF next to the eyeball? Bad idea!! by stevew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It may very well be practical to put electronics next to the eyeball to do a display or whatever, but you do NOT want to put any kind of RF source/sink there. There would only be two ways to power such a unit - solar and RF energy beamed in ala RFID. The pictures I've seen suggest the latter. Having a resonant antenna at such frequencies would scare the heck out of me. Local heating or perhaps re-radiation at microwave frequencies next to something that is essentially H2O? You do KNOW that is why microwave ovens work.

    I think I'll stick with LCD monitors.

    --
    Have you compiled your kernel today??
    1. Re:RF next to the eyeball? Bad idea!! by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      You do KNOW that is why microwave ovens work.

      Actually, no I don't, because that's not how microwave ovens work. The resonance situation you are referring to only occurs in water vapor, not liquid, and then only at much higher frequencies. Microwaves operate by causing polar molecules, such as water, to repeatedly flip back and forth in an oscillating magnetic field. These spinning molecules impact each other, resulting in heat.

      The bigger issue is that your eyes constitute a large volume of polar liquids with relatively little contact surface to conduct heat away, and no circulation. Where other parts of your body may be similarly affected by RF, your eyes have very little ability to cool themselves, meaning the sustained radiative energy they can accept is much lower.

  8. Terminator-style wouldn't be useful by RadioElectric · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't read text in your peripheral vision. The best they could hope for would be sticking rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) text in the fovea (i.e. flashing up a rapid sequence of words right in the centre of the visual field). This could work, but it's hard to see why anybody would want it. You wouldn't be able to multi-task, because the text would be in the way. You wouldn't be able to access the text in a non-serial fashion either, which removes any advantage over having it presented in audio form.

    1. Re:Terminator-style wouldn't be useful by frostfreek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, what if there was a computer attached to it with sensors that could read your eyeball's orientation, and adjust the display so that the floating text appeared to be a stationary object.
      Then, reading from a page would look about the same as looking at a semi-transparent monitor.

      Is it possible to track an eye that fast?

      I can see it now, "Vision Display 1.1, now with MotionPlus(tm)"

    2. Re:Terminator-style wouldn't be useful by RadioElectric · · Score: 2

      Once you've done that it's functionally no different to installing the tech into a wearable headset. Putting it into a pair of glasses would actually be a lot simpler because you never have to factor out the eye movements, comfort and safety are less problematic, and you have more space to work with. It's possible that the lenses for focusing the image at a close distance might not work when they're not fixed to the eye's position though.

      Actually, the problem with the method you lay out is that I'm pretty sure you would have to have the lenses for focusing the display over the centre of your vision (though I don't know much about ocular optics, I study the brain side of things). In that case you would need the technology to be tiny if it wasn't going to obscure the most informative area of your visual field when you weren't actively using it.

    3. Re:Terminator-style wouldn't be useful by RadioElectric · · Score: 2

      You're right, you'd get fading for any perfectly fixed image. You could always modulate it to avoid that though.

      The problem I find with doing as you say (simulating that the text display is at a position in space) is that next you might want some way to turn it on and off. Maybe a hand gesture? And then a way to manipulate the text? More hand gestures? Speech recognition? If it has to do significant processing you're going to need some external hardware. At what point are you basically simulating picking up a smartphone (for no benefit)?

    4. Re:Terminator-style wouldn't be useful by RadioElectric · · Score: 2

      I've just had a chat with someone else working in my lab who pointed out that beyond my problems with this, the projected image itself would appear to jump erratically around. This would be for the exact same reason that we usually don't notice our eye movements (i.e. stabilisation in the brain factoring them out).

  9. Re:This makes no sense by AikonMGB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You should get a research position with the lab, you obviously have a far deeper understanding of the subject.

  10. coming soon AdBlocker for the eyes by TampaBay · · Score: 2

    Am I the only one who fears this simply for the possibility of advertisers using it to force us to view even more ads? FF a DVR past commercials? Ads. Popup block on . Ads. Walking down the street, in front of my business? Ads.

  11. Re:Fat party girls rejoice! by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately it cannot hide people being douchebags.

  12. hijack strangers' eyes by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the next big thing: hijack other people's vision by cracking whatever needs to be cracked (and it seems there is nothing to crack there, except the frequency at this point), send advertising directly into people's eyes.

    You can't even CLOSE your eyes at that point, you close your eyes and the images still keep on coming! (which, by the way, could be a new way to do something about insomnia for some people, just project the jumping sheep right into the eyes for a while).

    1. Re:hijack strangers' eyes by grim4593 · · Score: 2

      For an example of this watch Ghost in the Shell.

  13. Nice "news" from 2009 by Hentes · · Score: 3, Informative
  14. Re:Electronic Contact Lens Displays PIXEL on the e by martijnd · · Score: 2

    You only need very few pixels to make a working digital clock.

    So first application: digital eye watch.

  15. Robocop/Terminator Vision by Dusthead+Jr. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes I know it's all fiction and all that, but I always seem to imagine the whole "Robocop/Terminator" vision thing as taking place inside their brain rather than on the surface of their eyes. Something like video gen-lock that takes the video feed and overlays text on top, bypassing the whole focusing issue. I remember trying to visualize what how that would work in a pair of glasses, so I put my cellphone right up to my eye while trying to keep the screen in focus. I could, sort of painfully. Then I also realized that I would need to focus on the everything else. I would have to focus on something very close and far away, at the same time. I would like to know how they accomplished this.

  16. Re:This makes no sense by TheLink · · Score: 2

    Does that mean you would have to take off the contact lens in order to see other stuff clearly (e.g. stuff not on the display)?

    Otherwise you'd then have to wait for tech that can either focus for both or switch between display and "real world" (maybe even rapidly).

    --
  17. Like those seen in Terminator? Ummm...no by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 2

    The first version may only have one pixel, but higher resolution lens displays - like those seen in Terminator

    No character -- that I am aware of -- had electronic contact lenses in the movie Terminator. I don't recall John Connor or Kyle Reese wearing such lenses. The titular character had a graphical display overlay on the visual input from it's "eyes", but it did not wear contact lenses.

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  18. Re:Pixels? by MstrFool · · Score: 3, Informative

    First time my butt... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080117125636.htm 2008, with photo of an even more complex working lens, on a rabbit's eye. From Slashdot, http://science.slashdot.org/story/08/01/17/1921217/bionic-contact-lens-may-lead-to-overlay-displays and http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/01/1619248/augmented-reality-in-a-contact-lens from 2008 and 2009, respectively. Took a while to sort through all the google echos of this being the first time, to get to the older pages where it had already been done. Though it is comforting to know that even more people are working to help create our soon to be our Human-Rabit hybrid Cybernetic overlords, whom I, for one, will welcome.

    --
    Question reality.
  19. Re:Pixels? by MstrFool · · Score: 2

    Now that that's out of the way... Even a single pixel can be quite useful if applied correctly. Use it as a toxin/radiation alert in high risk situations. Covert navigation. Just always knowing due north in any condition can permit a skilled navigator to get most any where, and would be unlikely to be picked up by enemy nightvision, unlike a glowing compass. Communications, mores code as mentioned in a post below, useful in covert tactical, even if used for nothing more then a 'holy (whatever)! Abort! Abort! Evac!' signal. Covert display for a concealed radar detector for the states that do not permit radar detectors. A signal to let your pet bunny know that you put food out. Why, the possibilities are near endless. Incorporate eye motion, and you can even have Pong any where you are. Heck, work in augmented reality and you can Pong between buildings as you walk.

    --
    Question reality.
  20. Need new rendering paradigm(s) needed by cowtamer · · Score: 2

    I hope someone out there realizes that contact lens display will require an entirely new rendering paradigm for virtual reality (or 3D graphics in general -- but if you have a contact lens display with essentially 360 field of view, why NOT do Virtual Reality?).

    The eye only sees about 2-3 degrees at once, and scans the scene so that your brain can create a 3D reconstruction. Instead of just pushing a high number of pixels at a high FPS, it will make a LOT more sense to track the eye and render what the viewer is looking at in very high resolution, and the rest of the scene in lower resolution. This needs to be done with both eyes while taking into account vergence and accommodation (which object each eye is pointing at, and where the eye is focusing).

    If 3D graphics researchers are smart, I see a LOT of good research coming up in rendering paradigms made possible by this type of display which give an effective 100+ megapixel display while using only several megapixels of rendering capability...

    If they are NOT smart, we'll see some heads-up display type of applications with annoying text which moves with your eye movement ...

    There is some preliminary work being done which may aid this in Foveated Rendering.

  21. This actually is the future of monitors by BlueCoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But there are technical hurdles.

    One is the power requirements. How bright do the LED's need to be being so close to the eye. Next there would need to be very fast electronic processing in the contact lenses, and it would have to be very fast. It would need to be able to process a radio signal and display the results in real time and there would need to be enough radio spectrum and data throughput for at least three people or four people within a cubic meter. So obviously the first displays will be monochromatic and a very simple self generated text/vector displays rather than video. That would be sufficient for a HUD setup. The lenses will probably be expensive so more than likely they would be implanted within the eye like artificial corneas and will likely take up the entire surface of the eye and require removal of the eyeball from the socket for implantation.

    They will need a refresh rate at least ten times faster than the eye and be able to detect orientation and focus and be able to compensate. Only what is in the center of vision would need to be in focus.

    Then there is the question of heat generation. Even a small amount of heat my degrade the health of an eye. The more processing the contact lens does the more heat it generates. While I do think that someday electronics may be low power enough to run on the equivalent power of static electricity shock for an hour we are nowhere near there yet and probably won't be for a hundred years.

    I see implants that tap into the optic nerves as far more likely and realistic. They could run on glucose and oxygen in the blood and could generate a little heat while being tolerant of our bodies latent heat. If the device doesn't generate a signal the the optic nerve would operate normally but with an active signal and under normal circumstances it would be switched to an artificial processed signal. Imagine televisions being no more than a green screen but having an overlay of a video signal generated electronically inside your head. I can also imagine artificially perfect eyes mechanically similar to our natural ones but far superior being offered as replacements once the optic nerve can be tapped. The bionic eye could be feasible to where you could recognize someone a football field away and or focus on things very close up. A greater sensitivity to light to see in the dark as well as frequency shifting effects so you can see infrared and ultraviolet light.

    1. Re:This actually is the future of monitors by UpnAtom · · Score: 2

      The real killer here may be that the eye differs greatly from what we see. Eyes focussing on a fixed object have stochastic type movement (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0042698969901126) yet what we see is a stable 3D image.

      Any display that moves similarly is likely to be highly distracting.

  22. So I've got these new contacts... by Tastecicles · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...loaded with Windows eye9, driving along in my spanking brand new Jag XF, when suddenly...

    No. I don't even want to think about the whole new dimension to "Blue Screen Of Death".

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  23. " The bunnies suffered no ill effects" by sonamchauhan · · Score: 2

    How do we know? Perhaps the poor bunnies all are soldiering on through terrific migranes... :D