Implant Gives Grayscale Vision To the Blind Using Lasers

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Implant Gives Grayscale Vision To the Blind Using Lasers

Posted by Unknown on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @09:50AM from the not-safe-for-mcdonald's dept.

MrSeb writes with a bit from Extreme Tech: "After a lot of theorizing, posturing, and non-human trials, it looks like bionic eye implants are finally hitting the market — first in Europe, and hopefully soon in the U.S. These implants can restore sight to completely blind patients — though only if the blindness is caused by a faulty retina, as in macular degeneration (which millions of old people suffer from), diabetic retinopathy, or other degenerative eye diseases. ... The Bio-Retina, developed by Nano Retina, is a whole lot more exciting. The Bio-Retina costs ... around the $60,000 [and] the 576-pixel vision-restoring sensor is actually placed inside the eye, on top of the retina. The operation only takes 30 minutes and can be performed under local anesthetic. Once installed, 576 electrodes on the back of the sensor implant themselves into your optic nerve. The best bit, though, is how the the sensor is powered: The Bio-Retina system comes with a standard pair of corrective lenses that are modified so that they can fire a near-infrared laser beam through your iris to the sensor at the back of your eye. On the sensor there is a photovoltaic cell that produces up to three milliwatts — not a lot, but more than enough."

102 of 165 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ain't technology great? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 09:56 · Score: 3, Funny

This is super cool, if it works, but I'll shit golden sunshine before I let someone near my eyeball with a knife!
1. Re:Ain't technology great? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 10:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think if you were unable to see sufficently to function you would take this option! I certainly did when I got lasic.
2. Re:Ain't technology great? by X0563511 · 2012-07-17 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Would you say that if you couldn't see at all?
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
3. Re:Ain't technology great? by Seraphim1982 · 2012-07-17 10:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is super cool, if it works, but I'll shit golden sunshine before I let someone near my eyeball with a knife!
  If you were blind would you care?
4. Re:Ain't technology great? by arthurpaliden · 2012-07-17 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  If you are blind you only get one done. Then see how it works before getting the other done. Or wait until version 3 or 4 before getting the other one done.
  
  --
  Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
5. Re:Ain't technology great? by Hatta · 2012-07-17 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Eyes are very sensitive whether you can see through them or not. Personally, I can't even manage putting eyedrops in my eyes. I'd rather sit with my eyes closed until they generate enough lubrication on their own than use eyedrops, and that can take 20 minutes or so if I'm really stoned.
  If I were totally blind, I'd probably opt for surgery. But it would have to be general anesthetic.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
6. Re:Ain't technology great? by jpapon · 2012-07-17 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'd imagine you'd have a different opinion on knives and your eyes if you were blind.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
7. Re:Ain't technology great? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 10:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You should try CXL surgery for a keratoconus, they don't actually cut anything but they drill away the upper layer of your cornea and you're only under local anesthetic so you see it coming. It looks just like a household drill with a small sander and works just the same. After that it's smooth sailing though and if you've gone from -3/-4 to -8/-10 in sight in less then a year you'll do pretty much anything to make it stop. I'm pretty sure a blind person would go through hell to see.
8. Re:Ain't technology great? by robot_love · 2012-07-17 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  This is super cool, if it works, but I'll shit golden sunshine before I let someone near my eyeball with a knife!
  If you were blind would you care?
  If you were blind, how would you know?
  
  --
  .there is enough of everything for everyone.
9. Re:Ain't technology great? by dgatwood · 2012-07-17 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  It is probably worth pointing out that the vast majority of people with cataracts could dramatically improve their vision just by using N-acetylcarnosine eye drops daily for a few months. Cataract surgery should be reserved for only the most serious cases, and only when eye drop treatment has failed. Instead, surgery seems to be the default treatment in the U.S. And this is, in part, why medical care is so expensive here....
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
10. Re:Ain't technology great? by hedley · 2012-07-17 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Hope you don't get cataracts then. They used a diamond scalpel on my eye to pop that acrylic lens in.
11. Re:Ain't technology great? by slashmydots · 2012-07-17 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  You know it's intended for blind people, right? Also, it can't run Minecraft (yet).
12. Re:Ain't technology great? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  That's a shitty analogy.
13. Re:Ain't technology great? by dwywit · 2012-07-17 11:45 · Score: 2
  
  There might be some additional benefits: Superhero vision http://www.komar.org/faq/colorado-cataract-surgery-crystalens/
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
14. Re:Ain't technology great? by parlancex · 2012-07-17 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  Certain types of laser eye surgery require an incision to be made in order to temporarily fold back the surface of the eye in order to access the applicable layers with the laser. Though it certainly sounds terrifying (especially because you're awake and maintain full motor control of your eyes while this is happening) I had this done a few weeks ago and my vision is almost better than it was with my glasses.
15. Re:Ain't technology great? by nerdinblack · 2012-07-17 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  I have had eye surgery with local anesthetic. I was not that bad, in fact I don't remember much of what happened during the surgery. I was told before the surgery that the local anesthetic was also a amnesiac.
16. Re:Ain't technology great? by durrr · 2012-07-17 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, you won't see it coming.
17. Re:Ain't technology great? by durrr · 2012-07-17 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  Local anestethic is delivered as eyedrops and remove the sensation of pain from your eye.
  But before that they give you some benzodiasepides which make you, well, high, calm and amnesic.
18. Re:Ain't technology great? by MrNaz · 2012-07-17 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  Stop poo-pooing his efforts.
  
  --
  I hate printers.
19. Re:Ain't technology great? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  This is super cool, if it works, but I'll shit golden sunshine before I let someone near my eyeball with a knife!
  If you were blind would you care?
  You wouldn't even see it coming!
20. Re:Ain't technology great? by dyingtolive · 2012-07-18 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  You both are full of crap.
  
  --
  Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
21. Re:Ain't technology great? by mcgrew · 2012-07-18 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  I've had two eye surgeries in my left eye; an artificial lens implant and a vitrectomy. There was no pain in the eye whatever with either surgery, not even post-op.
  Not being able to put eyedrops in is only a matter of your fear. Artificial tears don't hurt, neither do new contact lenses (back in 1975 when they were primitive, I couldn't use them, I tried).
  Sometimes you can't opt for a general, for the lens replacement you can't be asleep, but I would imagine with this artificial retina you would have a choice; I had a choice with the vitrectomy (without which I would have gone completely blind in that eye).
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
22. Re:Ain't technology great? by mcgrew · 2012-07-18 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. I had a CrystaLens implanted in my left eye, and two years later a vitrectomy. Someone should tell the AC they don't use knives in eye surgery, they use needles.
  TFS says "The operation only takes 30 minutes and can be performed under local anesthetic" but this is at least misleading. The first surgery I had (lens replacement) took over an hour and would be far simpler than this procedure, and the vitrectomy, which repairs a detatched retina and replaces the eye's vitreous with nitrogen gas took two and a half hours.
  It was more than a local, as well. They put you into what they call "twilight sleep". You're awake, but not really. I was offered the choice between a local (including the twilight drug) and a general for the vitrectomy, I told Dr. Odin (yes, that's his real name!) "knock me out" but the anestesiologist talked me out of it.
  I should have taken the general for the vitrectomy. Having your head bolted to an operating table is sheer hellish pain when you have spinal arthritis.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
23. Re:Ain't technology great? by rullywowr · 2012-07-18 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  You should stop dumping on them.
24. Re:Ain't technology great? by mcgrew · 2012-07-18 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  I've had that surgery. They don't use scalpels, they use needles. First they shoot ultrasound down the needle to turn the lens into goo, then extract it through the needle, then insert the artificial lens through the needle where it unrolls. Here are photos and an explanation, which pretty much matches what the surgeon told me.
  I hope you got the CrystaLens, they can actually focus. I don't even need reading glasses and I'm 60. I used to need both contacts AND reading glasses.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
25. Re:Ain't technology great? by mcgrew · 2012-07-18 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  There might be some additional benefits: Superhero vision http://www.komar.org/faq/colorado-cataract-surgery-crystalens/
  
  I can vouch for that as an eyewitness. I was severely nearsighted all my life with 20/400 vision. Then I got older and was farsighted as well, then I got an eye infection and the treatment gave me a cataract. My vision is now 20/16 at distance and 20/12 at close up; way better than the normal 20/20. No glasses, no contacts, not even reading glasses... and I'm 60!
  You would have been better linking CrystaLens itself rather than your surgeon's site.
  Not everyone gets that good of results, however. The literature from CrystaLens itself says 98% of patients wind up with 20/25 or better. 20/25 isn't bad, but nowhere near super vision. I got lucky and had an excellent surgeon. My ex-wife wasn't so lucky, she had the surgery at a different place and now wears bifocals.
  But the implant TFS is talking about is far from super vision; at 525 pixels you would still be legally blind, which is better than completely blind.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
26. Re:Ain't technology great? by mcgrew · 2012-07-18 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Not that amnesic, I remember all of it. I especially remember kind of freaking out when they stuck the needle in my eye. But there was no pain, and I didn't feel high or disoriented, although they warned me that it was illegal for me to drive for the next 24 hours.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Retina Display Anyone? by oic0 · 2012-07-17 09:58 · Score: 4, Funny

I think I'll wait for the high res apple version with retina display ;) The resolution on these bad boys blows. (disclaimer, I hate apple but couldn't help myself).
1. Re:Retina Display Anyone? by otaku244 · 2012-07-17 10:09 · Score: 2
  
  ....aaaand done:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaHUpWuqNHY
  
  --
  Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
2. Re:Retina Display Anyone? by MiniMike · 2012-07-17 10:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You mean the iEye? Sigh.
  If such a product were available, I could imagine Apple zealots* lining up, waiting to poke their eyes out as soon as it was their turn...
  (*Not picking on all Apple users, just the extremists)
3. Re:Retina Display Anyone? by medv4380 · 2012-07-17 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Willing Test Subject. Perfect
4. Re:Retina Display Anyone? by Culture20 · 2012-07-17 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  ?IEye? !Ay ay ay!
5. Re:Retina Display Anyone? by pspahn · 2012-07-17 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  I am suddenly fearful for my retirement years.
  I imagine loads of teenagers running around with augmented vision while I struggle to figure out how to configure the device.
  Hopefully this doesn't happen before I can afford to disappear into the mountains and just go fishing every day.
  
  --
  Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
6. Re:Retina Display Anyone? by mcgrew · 2012-07-18 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, kid, you'll be fine. I have a CrystaLens in my left eye that gives me 20/16 vision at distance and 20/12 closeup vision. I used to have 20/400 vision. It's completely transparent to the user, as the best designs always are. I focus it just the same as a young person focuses their natural lense; no figuring anything out at all. Look at a thing, and it's in focus.
  Your problem when you get old will be the same problem my 81 year old dad has with cell phones and computers -- a fixed income and an attitude. "I did without a cell phone and computer for 80 years and I don't need one now."
  When my uncle wanted to put indoor plumbing in my grandfather's house, he had the same attitude. Uncle Bud put it in anyway at the insistance of my grandmother. Grandpa still used the outhouse, even though there was now a bathroom. You get stuck in your ways when you get old.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Careful. by girlintraining · 2012-07-17 10:03 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm always happy for research done to improve mobility and functioning for disabled people. Not enough is done to help those who are vision, mobility, or hearing impaired. That said... be really careful out there. There's way too many people who are scared by anyone who looks different. Steve Mann was recently attacked for having a digital eye prothetic by employees of a McDonald's. There didn't appear to be any motive for the assault other than a fear of his prothetics. His family was with him at the time.
I've heard similar reports of people being attacked who have brain implants to deliver electrical stimulation due to epilepsy, depression, etc. If it's visible, sooner or later some stupid neanderthal bastard's going to attack you for it. I personally think it should be a hate crime to attack a disabled (or 'augmented') person... but it's still more science fiction than science fact to our legislators to consider, I think.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Careful. by CanHasDIY · 2012-07-17 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Modded negatively because (a) you didn't read through and understand the motive for the assault on Steve Mann (thus you are spreading FUD), and (b) you are trying to justify your ignorance with hearsay. Provide facts or state your case as opinion or just STFU.
  Sayeth the chickenshit AC.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
2. Re:Careful. by KingAlanI · 2012-07-17 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  a shouldn't mess with nature/God/et cetera attitude?
  
  --
  I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
3. Re:Careful. by medv4380 · 2012-07-17 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  It was because McDonalds in France doesn't like their menus being photographed. They wen't to pretty extreme measures just for some foolish reason. McDonalds is trying to confirm that it was actually their employees in the pictures, and the motive. Still boils down to fear of cybernetic prosthesis. It would be like stealing a hearing aid because he might be able to record the conversation.
4. Re:Careful. by Glarimore · 2012-07-17 10:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Quite honestly, I don't know why we shit on ACs just for being ACs. It's the same thing as an ad hominem attack, which we regularly condemn here.
  
  In reality the AC is correct and the grandparent is incorrect in his assertion that, "There didn't appear to be any motive for the assault other than a fear of his prothetics." Grandparent is apparently unaware that essentially all information regarding Mann's incident comes from his blog. There was thorough discussion on Slashdot about possible motives and I think it was generally agreed upon that the reason for the attack was a perfect storm of a) language barrier b) Mann's disregard for the rules of McDonalds, and from what I gather, unwillingness to leave (no filming or pictures) and c) McDonald's employees who are currently trying to keep their restaurant, which is currently under protest, from going under.
  
  All this being said, AC's comment, though correct, was inflammatory with the "state facts or STFU" spiel at the end. It looks like there are only losers here.
5. Re:Careful. by NeutronCowboy · 2012-07-17 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  As with pretty much all posts with girlintraining, the post gets some basic information right, and then goes off on a wild goose chase. The attack was motivated by his implant, but the motivation was absolutely not "he looked different". Instead, they objected to the fact that the camera was photographing them, which was counter the rules they had set up, and which were indicated on the sign outside the restaurant. Finally, her last comment is unsubstantiated hearsay, and probably flat out wrong as well. I don't remember any case like that, and I have a special interest in anything brain-implant related.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
6. Re:Careful. by Nemyst · 2012-07-17 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Except this is invisible. If you'd watched the video linked in TFA, you'd have noticed that the implant itself is entirely hidden in the eye (and is smaller than a penny) and uses a specially modified but otherwise plain-looking pair of eyeglasses to get power.
  If you get assaulted for wearing glasses, well, we have really big problems.
7. Re:Careful. by luther349 · 2012-07-17 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  guess you didn't read that story. that mcdonalds was being harassed by the media. they thought the camera was for the media.
8. Re:Careful. by BlueStrat · 2012-07-17 11:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  > "Still boils down to fear of cybernetic prosthesis."
  
  No, it boils down to the guy taking pictures of the premises. It being a prosthesis is irrelevant.
  As far as I could tell from the admittedly-scant information the /. story and linked article provided about Mann's implants & digital vision augmentations, it seems they were not designed, nor had as a normal function, the ability to photograph/video-record on command. The pictures of Mann's attackers were said to have resulted from the attacker's damaging the system resulting in the images being frozen in buffers.
  If McDonalds or any other business that deals directly with the public in such a manner has a problem with the possible capabilities of such prosthesis, then they need to post high-visibility signage at the entrances stating that those with electronic-based prosthesis are not welcome on the premises.
  Assault & battery is not an acceptable response in any civilized society. Then again, the French have never been in danger of being accused of being overly-civil to Americans visiting France. It's one of the main reasons I as a blues musician have turned down opportunities to do tours in France, despite the love the French have for American blues music.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
9. Re:Careful. by MightyMartian · 2012-07-17 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  In a civilized society you don't beat the shit out of people even if provoked.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
10. Re:Careful. by Denogh · 2012-07-17 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Modded negatively because (a) you didn't read through and understand the motive for the assault on Steve Mann (thus you are spreading FUD), and (b) you are trying to justify your ignorance with hearsay. Provide facts or state your case as opinion or just STFU.
  Please enlighten me. I've seen several stories about the assault, but never anything about the motive. If you have a source that I haven't found, links or it never happened.
11. Re:Careful. by BlueStrat · 2012-07-17 13:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They may not have known that it didn't permanently record. They just saw a camera affixed to the guy's face and acted.
  No.
  They saw a prosthetic device affixed to the guy's face.
  Because they feared what they did not understand simply because of it's appearance, and in addition, despite documentation he carried for this purpose they assaulted him.
  I don't know how much clearer this can be made that they feared him because of his appearance with prosthesis.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
12. Re:Careful. by sjames · 2012-07-17 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  So, what will they do when visual prosthesis becomes more common, will we hear phrases like "we don't serve your kinmd in here! Get lost Po!
  .
13. Re:Careful. by AssholeMcGee+ · 2012-07-17 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  I think this is greatly different in appearance then the glasses. According to the video clip you cannot even see it. Of course they do not show the actual operation be performed, or pictures of the operation.
14. Re:Careful. by BlueStrat · 2012-07-17 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  So, what will they do when visual prosthesis becomes more common, will we hear phrases like "we don't serve your kinmd in here! Get lost Po!
  Well, that's what C3PO was told at the cantina on Tatooine. :P
  I could see the day when augmented people need a civil rights movement to protect them from arbitrary discrimination.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
15. Re:Careful. by i · 2012-07-18 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  How do You know what Your are saying (writing) ? What are Your sources ?
  
  --
  Mundus Vult Decipi
16. Re:Careful. by mcgrew · 2012-07-18 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Back when few wore glasses, glasses were the sign of being a nerd and we were indeed attacked, quite often. Worse than wearing glasses was wearing glasses while carrying a stack of books.
  That was back when little TV was watched (three channels black and white, cable was in the future... most thigs we take for granted were sci-fi then) and kids played outside. A kid being inside all the time watching TV and playing video games and surfing the net will make him as nersighted as reading did back then... and just like now, few people do read.
  Nowadays young folks all wear glasses, or have had LASIK, because of the TVs, computers, tablets, cell phones, and other close up devices that made them all nearsighted.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
17. Re:Careful. by Killjoy_NL · 2012-07-18 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  There is this Docu-game called Deus Ex: Human Revolution, quite interesting and entertaining :)
  
  --
  This is the sig that says NI (again)
Introducing the iEye by ohnocitizen · 2012-07-17 10:09 · Score: 2

Every year, a new version will come out with less invasive surgery, better resolution, color... night mode... I hope they make these things somewhat easy to upgrade. Just imagining being able to switch visible spectrum has me wanting the future version for myself.
1. Re:Introducing the iEye by CanHasDIY · 2012-07-17 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Every year, a new version will come out with less invasive surgery, better resolution, color... night mode... I hope they make these things somewhat easy to upgrade. Just imagining being able to switch visible spectrum has me wanting the future version for myself.
  This.
  
  Not knocking the achievement - a journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step, and all, however...
  
  Wake me when we get to the enhancement phase; I always wanted to be able to switch between vision modes like in Predator.
  
  The wrist blades and mini-nuke would be bitchin', too, although that might be asking a bit much...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
2. Re:Introducing the iEye by Kjella · 2012-07-17 10:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I wouldn't get your hopes up too much, they're not really doing anything to map out the neurons in the eye. They're just punching through and stimulating whatever neurons are behind that spot of the retina, which will be "close enough" to give you a low-resolution grayscale image but they haven't got a clue on how to stimulate only one type of receptors so you can have color or to map it accurately so you can have high resolution. A working eye is a helluva sensor and I suspect we'll be using night vision goggles and such to translate invisible light to visible light for many decades to come.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
3. Re:Introducing the iEye by MozeeToby · 2012-07-18 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Color is admittedly a problem, but I would have thought that the brain would learn to adjust things for the positioning. At least, your brain did it once (unless every single eyeball has it's neurons laid out in exactly the same positions, which seems unlikely) and there are lots of things that your brain can take care of before it hits your stream of consciousness. I would think it's possible that ignoring the problem and letting the brain do it's thing might produce good results.
waiting for IPS repair options by wierd_w · 2012-07-17 10:12 · Score: 1

My mom is (was) a fine artist, and has macular degeneration. Is is almost completely blind in one eye, and half blind in the other.
It is my wish that IPS treatments for macular repair become a reality before she dies of old age, as it is something I would really like to get for her.
I'm not knocking the progress on this optical implant, but it only does greyscale and without serious microsurgery, will never stop being greyscale only. She needs full color to regain what she lost.
When they can regenerate damaged retinal tissue, I'm flying mom to Europe.
1. Re:waiting for IPS repair options by slew · 2012-07-17 11:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm not knocking the progress on this optical implant, but it only does greyscale and without serious microsurgery, will never stop being greyscale only. She needs full color to regain what she lost.
  There's no reason to believe that fancy microsurgery is required in order to visualize color. As a trivial example, nearly all color digital cameras have color filter arrays embedded over a monochrome sensor (other than foveon/sigma). It's not a big stretch to imagine that a future revision of this chip could have a color filter array and your brain (visual cortex) could learn to recognize different spatial encoding patterns as different colors.
  That's similar to what your brain does now (although the retina helps by doing some type of local opponent-color coding). If the color mapping isn't easy for your brain to learn and you need a mapping more like your original mapping, in the worst case, you could even make the sensor configurable (stimulate different nerves for different colors). Although if you did this "simply" the pixels might be slightly scrambled, but that could be compensated for by using a really high resolution sensor (all cameras have multi-megapixel sensors these days), and then recoding to a lower resolution for output to the optic nerve.
  All these things can be easily done on the sensor chip itself w/o requiring more advanced surgical techniques... Ah the wonder of silicon technology...
  P.S. Dibs on the patents for this (or at least prior-art on the idea)...
2. Re:waiting for IPS repair options by cnettel · 2012-07-17 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  The main problem in bandiis not the chip, it is the neuron-chip interface. Just "throw a bunch of conducting needles down into the tissue and let it fuse to whatever when the wound heals" will most likely not scale to original resolution, and it will definitely have problems with color encoding.
It's not so great (yet) by gr8_phk · 2012-07-17 10:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

They claim a 24x24 pixel image. The video shows a low-resolution grey scale video of a kid on a swing. Looks fantastic if you consider going from blind to THAT. However I paused a frame and the kids head was 12 pixels wide. So the overall image is probably at least 120 to 240 wide - many times higher resolution than the device actually produces. So the video is not actually representative. With further advancements one can hope (expect?) that the resolution will increase over the years. Gives new meaning to "retina display".
1. Re:It's not so great (yet) by slashmydots · 2012-07-17 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  I watched the video as well and caught that right away. That's not the only thing they BSed though. Obviously it can only go in 1 eye, as the pixels wouldn't match up perfectly 1:1 between the eyes so the user would be disoriented and have no depth perception. It says that the glasses contain the power source which is rechargeable and shine a laser into your eye. I hope it doesn't miss that impossibly small device and keep hitting your organic cells. I'm sure it'd be fine if you never ever ever move your head (or lose your glasses lol). I just downsampled a random video I had to 24x24 grayscale. It wasn't real pretty. It was actually quite confusing as to what part I was actually watching and I knew the video.
  I think that was a very misleading marketing video or investor bait. The theory sort of works though so if they make one 10x better, they might just have something there.
2. Re:It's not so great (yet) by tie_guy_matt · 2012-07-17 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  When humans view stuff their eyes constantly move. The brain stitches all the images together to get a great view of whats going on. The human eye really isn't that great of a camera but it is connected to the greatest image processing software in the universe. Since the sensor implants directly into the optic nerve I bet the human brain can make the most of the sensor and people with the implant can see better than you think.
3. Re:It's not so great (yet) by sootman · 2012-07-17 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Even 24x24 would be enough to help you navigate around as you walk. That would be a HUGE step up from being blind. Also, by moving your eye around a bit, you could probably get more effective detail--like how if you move your head while looking through showerglass you can get a better idea of what's behind it.* Or, you can be standing near the frame of a door that's open 2mm and by moving your head back and forth you can get a pretty good idea of what's on the other side.**
  OK, better example: watch some really tiny video, like 160x120. While it's playing, you can see a good amount of detail, but if you pause a frame, the details are barely discernible.
  * No, I am not a peeping Tom.
  ** Really, I'm not. :-)
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
4. Re:It's not so great (yet) by asdf7890 · 2012-07-17 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  but it is connected to the greatest image processing software in the universe
  ... that we know of. There might be better that we've not found on this planet, in fact there almost certainly is better for various definitions of better, before even considering elsewhere in the universe.
5. Re:It's not so great (yet) by pgn674 · 2012-07-17 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  Here is a representative image to compare: Pixelated Kid - Imgur
6. Re:It's not so great (yet) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  I watched the video as well and caught that right away.
  
  Well, I'm not saying their video isn't overrepresenting the acuity, but it's not near as bad as your naive assumptions lead you to conclude.
  The retina doesn't have anything like resolution the vision system as a whole does (FFS, there's a blind spot, but there's no "hole" in perception except in specially contrived circumstances.) -- while this implant is certainly worse than a healthy retina, your fixational eye movements will give substantially better than resolution than a 24x24px video.
  
  That's not the only thing they BSed though. Obviously it can only go in 1 eye, as the pixels wouldn't match up perfectly 1:1 between the eyes so the user would be disoriented and have no depth perception.
  Your retinas don't have a matched pattern of photoreceptors. Additionally, a lot of people (myself included) wear corrective eyeglasses, which are usually quite symmetric; our faces are less symmetric, and as a result the lenses are frequently offset a mm or two, introducing small geometric distortions that wreck any supposed perfect match, or any pre-existing neuroplastic adaptation to compensate (which, of course, would be in time re-adapted to the implant anyway). Yet we are not "disoriented and [having] no depth perception", because the vergence control system brings them to bear on the correct point, and because the parts of the visual cortex handling fusion and stereopsis have some latitude in alignment.
7. Re:It's not so great (yet) by Jeremi · 2012-07-17 14:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Obviously it can only go in 1 eye, as the pixels wouldn't match up perfectly 1:1 between the eyes so the user would be disoriented and have no depth perception
  Don't underestimate the brain's power to figure out the distortion in sensory inputs and compensate for them. For example, there was that study where subjects wore mirrored glasses so that everything they saw was upside down -- within a day or two they didn't even notice (until they took the glasses off, anyway, at which point they had to re-adapt again).
  A more likely reason to limit the procedure to one eye would be to avoid having to double the price to $120,000 for only minimal additional benefit.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
8. Re:It's not so great (yet) by schlachter · 2012-07-17 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  would be interesting to see what the upgrade cycle will be on this for patients as resolution increases and color perception is added.
  
  --
  My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
9. Re:It's not so great (yet) by leonardluen · 2012-07-18 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  A more likely reason to limit the procedure to one eye would be to avoid having to double the price to $120,000 for only minimal additional benefit.
  that is why you get it done in one eye and then wait until generation 2 or 3 comes out to do the other. then there will be a larger benefit
Upgrades for "perfect" vision by otuz · 2012-07-17 10:21 · Score: 1

Some day, these will evolve into incredible resolutions and better sharpness and viewing angles technically possible with analog eyes. Add some good interfaces for displaying synthetic signals without cameras, and you'll have the perfect monitor. I think I saw the research for this stuff in late 90's, so turning research into mass-market products seems to have at least a decade of delay. The current research stuff being direct brain implants not only for eyesight, but sending and reading nerve signals directly to/from the brain means we'll all be bionic cyborgs within a couple of decades, if we can afford it.
Wow! by pubwvj · 2012-07-17 10:22 · Score: 3

So wonderful! My grandfather went blind towards the end of his life, or nearly so. Having sight again would have been something he dearly would have liked for reading. I hope this continues to advance and quickly for all those who are sight impaired.
What I can not figure out... by Cosgrach · 2012-07-17 10:26 · Score: 2

Is just *why* the blind are using lasers!

--
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
1. Re:What I can not figure out... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-07-17 11:05 · Score: 2
  
  Is just *why* the blind are using lasers!
  Well, they weren't blind when they first started using them...
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
"modified" to shoot lasers? by erice · 2012-07-17 10:27 · Score: 2

Never mind the parts that the author did not feel were important enough to mention:
1) the lasers
2) The power source for the lasers
Last I checked, standard corrective lenses didn't have anything batteries, electronics, or even the raw materials to make power sources or electronics.
They are just regular sharks. Well, apart from the friggin lasers on top of their heads!
careful, but in a different way... by slew · 2012-07-17 10:27 · Score: 1

...There didn't appear to be any motive for the assault other than a fear of his prothetics...

The apparent motive was that they didn't want to be filmed and were trying to confiscate his camera. Of course many business establishments have a policy against taking pictures or video (under the guise of security and patron/employee privacy, but more likely to avoid any bad publicity).
Unfortunatly, these folks were likely not well trained on how to handle this and as a result even worse publicity will result from this incident.
That doesn't make this event a hate crime against people with prosthetics, though...
My policy: you should be careful not to cry wolf when there isn't really a wolf, because when the wolf comes (and they aways do), people might have already written you off.
1. Re:careful, but in a different way... by slew · 2012-07-17 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  damn preview timer, messed up the quote tags.. Oh well...
Re:finally... by Vapula · 2012-07-17 10:31 · Score: 1

There are aleady hearing restoration though a devinde put in the head with the receptor and an electrode sending the "sound signal", and a device looking like a standard earing helper with the microphone and the emitter, put around the ear.
And years ago (15-20 years ago), I read in a book about electronics and what it allows about an artificial hand controlled by the brain (it could open/close the fingers), with heat and pressure captors which would send some basic feeling to the brain... It required lots of training to learn to control it but was working afaik.
Science marches on.. by jxander · 2012-07-17 10:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Eyes ain't the only thing being replaced by tech
A buddy of mine is a type 1 diabetic; he was simply born with a faulty pancreas. For the majority of his life, he dealt with constant insulin injections, as typical for a diabetic. A few years back however, he was upgraded to an external pump. It looks just like an old beeper, and plugs into a semi-permanent* injection point under his shirt. Whenever he eats, he just has to push a few buttons on the pump and it steadily drips the correct amount of insulin into his blood stream
Of course, a pancreas isn't nearly as complex as an eye, so I'm glad to see science and medicine marching onward. Given that these advancements have happened in just a few short years, has me excited to see what will happen in this field within the next decade or so.
*semi-permanent: He stab himself once every few days, and there's a whole bracketing system roughly the size of a silver dollar that glues onto his skin and keeps the needle/tubing at the correct depth.

--
This signature is false.
Re:Another Star Trek Prediction by jxander · 2012-07-17 10:33 · Score: 1

Hell, this is almost a step ABOVE Star Trek. Jordie still had to wear that funny hair-clip visor around. These guys are just wearing normal (normal-ish) glasses.

--
This signature is false.
too late !! We already built the brain pacemaker by JonySuede · 2012-07-17 10:36 · Score: 1

too late we have a few brain pacemakers to treat drugs resistant epilepsy

--
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Photovoltaic? by squidflakes · 2012-07-17 10:36 · Score: 2

If their power comes from a photovoltaic chip on corrective lenses, does that mean that you're going to wake-up blind every morning?
1. Re:Photovoltaic? by slashmydots · 2012-07-17 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Blind and unable to see or remember where you left your glasses that you didn't sleep in :-P
Hopefully improved by tsotha · 2012-07-17 10:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm hoping not only that resolution improves (and color, naturally), but why stop there? I wouldn't mind being able to see in UV bands and a telescopic lens would be nice.
1. Re:Hopefully improved by asdf7890 · 2012-07-17 11:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You might find that the 576 pixels gives the patients better vision than you'd imagine. They'll not be driving or reading any small-print, but our eyes are not massively high res to start with and the brain does a ton of work to scan them around to put the scene together and enhancing the result "post-production". Of course compared to blind even if it isn't all that good it'll still be a massively life changing improvement.
  
  Just think: in a few decades time "you'll go blind" will no longer be a threat to 14 years olds...
In other words... by Tanuki64 · 2012-07-17 11:00 · Score: 1

After a lot of theorizing, posturing, and non-human trials, it looks like bionic eye implants are finally hitting the market â" first in Europe, and hopefully soon in the U.S.

Europeans shall play guinea pig for Americans.
Alt headline: Blind Sharks Rejoice by fahrbot-bot · 2012-07-17 11:02 · Score: 1

The Bio-Retina system comes with a standard pair of corrective lenses that are modified so that they can fire a near-infrared laser beam through your iris to the sensor at the back of your eye.
From the subject, you obviously know where I'm going with this...

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I'll Wait by organgtool · 2012-07-17 11:03 · Score: 1

A resolution of 576 pixels is better than nothing, but I'm going to wait for a Retina display.
Avoid Mcdonalds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 11:03 · Score: 1

Careful to not take that into McDonalds.
The Future by sexconker · 2012-07-17 11:27 · Score: 1

Since it's 576 lines, it must be PAL, which means she's seeing stuff happen with a speedup of about 4.271%.
Give it a few weeks and she'll know the lottery numbers before they're drawn.
citation needed by ridgecritter · 2012-07-17 11:51 · Score: 2

A quick WikiP search indicated the latest evidence for effectiveness against cataracts of N-acc drops was not real solid (see 2008 Royal College of Opthalmologists statement), the the Wiki article also indicates subsequent evidence is available, but doesn't give a cite. As someone who's developing corneal opacities, I'm interested, can you give a cite or two? Tnx.
Re:finally... by Teresita · 2012-07-17 12:42 · Score: 2

It's going to make Jiordi LaForge's vision prosthetic look as outdated as Kirk's flip phone in TOS.
dodgy html? by linatux · 2012-07-17 13:54 · Score: 1

My blind colleague would just like to read the article without it blowing up his text-to-speech software!
this is for macular degeneration, aka old people by circletimessquare · 2012-07-17 14:10 · Score: 1

do you think the thugs on the corner are scared of blind granny? not at all
but: do you think the thugs on the corner might be scared of granny with terminator style cybernetic laser eyeballs? she just has to learn how to say "hasta la vista, baby" or "i'll be back", the thugs will scatter in the wind

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Wait a minute, medicine in Europe is socialized! by mark_reh · 2012-07-17 16:13 · Score: 1

Why do they get this stuff before we do in the US, with our world-beating health care system?
Maybe there wouldn't be enough profit for insurance companies if we had it here...
As long as you don't take it into a McDonalds... by funkboy · 2012-07-17 19:57 · Score: 1

n/t
Re:Wait a minute, medicine in Europe is socialized by Isaac-1 · 2012-07-17 20:07 · Score: 1

Often it is the FDA approval process
Irony by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-07-17 23:49 · Score: 1

I'm reading this through my occasional early-morning fuzzies caused by my date with destiny: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuchs'_dystrophy Could be worse, but my perspective is biaseed.
Re:finally... by tomazos · 2012-07-18 00:57 · Score: 1
Here is my list of Feature Requests:
- Extend sensitivity into Infrared Spectrum
- Extend sensitivity into Ultraviolet Spectrum
- Zoom: Increase optical resolution, then digital zoom in and out with buttons on glasses.
- Heat mode, toggle button on glasses.
Re:finally... by artfulshrapnel · 2012-07-18 01:10 · Score: 1

Actually, this only allows for sharks with lasers going INTO their eyes. Not nearly as scary unfortunately...
I just won a bet because of this by Brewster+Jennings · 2012-07-18 01:20 · Score: 1

I made a bet with a co-worker back in 2004 that bionic implants would be available in the next ten years. Although, five dollars isn't what it used to be...
surprisingly by allo · 2012-07-18 05:12 · Score: 1

this is not goatse.
Re:finally... by rullywowr · 2012-07-18 05:39 · Score: 1
Here is my list of Feature Requests:
- Extend sensitivity into Infrared Spectrum
- Extend sensitivity into Ultraviolet Spectrum
- Zoom: Increase optical resolution, then digital zoom in and out with buttons on glasses.
- Heat mode, toggle button on glasses.
You have been playing wayyyyy too much Call of Duty, my friend. =)