Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Bionic Eye Could Restore Vision

Posted by Zonk on Fri Feb 16, 2007 06:15 PM
from the we-have-the-technology dept.
MattSparkes writes "A new bionic eye could restore vision to the profoundly blind. A prototype was tested on six patients and 'within a few weeks all could detect light, identify objects and even perceive motion again. For one patient, this was the first time he had seen anything in half a century.' The user wears a pair of glasses that contain a miniature camera and that wirelessly transmits video to a cellphone-sized computer in the wearer's pocket. This computer processes the image information and wirelessly transmits it to a tiny electronic receiver implanted in the wearer's head."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Science: Bionic Cat Eye Implants Aid Blindness Research 94 comments
docinthemachine writes with news of felines getting human retinal implants. The cats were afflicted with a version of retinitis pigmentosa, a disease that also blinds humans. The implants are 2-millimeter-wide chips surgically implanted in the back of eye. Each chip's surface is covered with 5,000 microphotodiodes that react to light, sending electric signals along the eye's optic nerve to the brain. The article makes clear that the implants don't allow the cats to see — what they get is impulses of light. The hope is that the electrical activity in the optic nerve will encourage new retinal cells to grow. The article notes: "The chips, which provide their own energy, have shown encouraging results in clinical human trials, in some cases improving sight in people with retinitis pigmentosa or at least slowing the disease's development. Narfstrom said chips have been implanted in 30 people."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Friday February 16 2007, @06:17PM (#18045834) Homepage Journal
    I imagine that in the not too distant future some perfectly healthy geek will have one of these implanted. I'd seriously consider it when resolution gets to about 24 bit SVGA ( It will have to have fast PGP on the wireless connection so that I control what I am seeing. I do not want my optical nerve spammed directly ).
    I hope there is a 'turn-off-and-see-through' option that lets you use the original organic hardware when you want.

    It works even better if it is implanted in an infant, so that the brain can adapt to it as it grows. This will, of course, be considered child abuse when it is first done. In a century or two it will be considered abuse NOT to have it done for your kid.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by timeOday (582209)

      I imagine that in the not too distant future some perfectly healthy geek will have one of these implanted.
      Sure, but not instead of a perfectly good eyeball. Triclops, anyone?

      Actually, I hope implants aren't the only way. Just give me the wearable version. Our brains are highly evolved to make use of our eyes, so I doubt there's much to be gained by cutting open healthy people for direct access to nerves.

    • by badboy_tw2002 (524611) on Friday February 16 2007, @06:29PM (#18045980)
      Mods are on crack - this is actual interesting discussion.

      There's too much we don't know aobut infant vision to mess with the brains early development - although who knows what stuff like television is already doing to us. However, I think it would be better to have these for overlays and such - where it mixes both the incoming light and anything being fed in from the connection. SVGA seems a little low resolution wise - don't forget this is your whole field of vision. You'd want probably 4-5 times that at least to resolve floating screens and such in front of you.

      Don't forget to add those aural implants for Dolby 600 channel sound!
      • by Dachannien (617929) on Friday February 16 2007, @08:02PM (#18046782)
        There's too much we don't know aobut infant vision to mess with the brains early development

        An interesting tidbit on this topic: Scientists have done experiments in cats where they've blocked all incoming light to the cat's eyes during early kittenhood. A portion of the visual cortex does not organize properly without this input, causing the cats to have permanent non-functional vision. A similar effect is seen in human children who are born with cataracts or develop them very shortly after birth.

        (Hubel and Wiesel received part of the 1981 Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine for this work done through the 1960s and 70s.)

        • by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Friday February 16 2007, @08:24PM (#18046900) Homepage Journal
          Another kitten experiment involved raising them in environments with either only horizontal or only vertical lines. As adults, they simply could not see objects of the 'wrong' orientation. A cat who had been raised in a horizontal-only world could hop up on the seat of a chair, but would bump into the legs if he tried to walk under it.
          • by Dunbal (464142) on Friday February 16 2007, @08:50PM (#18047054) Homepage
            A cat who had been raised in a horizontal-only world could hop up on the seat of a chair, but would bump into the legs if he tried to walk under it.


                  Cool! Next time I have kittens I know what I'm going to do....(evil laugh) heeeere kitty kitty kitty
          • by Trillian_1138 (221423) <slashdot@@@fridaythang...com> on Saturday February 17 2007, @12:11AM (#18048210)

            A cat who had been raised in a horizontal-only world could hop up on the seat of a chair, but would bump into the legs if he tried to walk under it.

            I had heard that the kittens could indeed not see vertical lines (or horizontal, depending on the environment in which they were raised) but that as soon as they were put in normal situations they learned to compensate almost instantly by tilting their heads. The way I heard it, if you put kittens raised without horizontal input and tested them, they couldn't see horizontal lines but that if you put them in a normal environment with a bunch of normal kittens, you couldn't tell the difference because the ones with the vision impairment were compensating.

            I never did see the study, and have no background in vision research, so I couldn't tell you which version is true, but I'd be willing to guess that the kittens learned to compensate by tilting their heads. It just seems unlikely they wouldn't learn how to compensate.

            Trillian

            PS - sorry for using the word 'compensate' so much. I guess I'm compensating for something.
      • I'd settled for having my vision augmented for UV, IR, and other spectra normally not visible. Particularly in low light conditions. Besides, it would be cool to never have to take my sunglasses off again.

        2 cents,

        QueenB.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by KlaymenDK (713149)
          You might want to think that over once more -- if you can see UV and especially IR, you definitely *would* need to wear sunglasses more often ... or be blinded by remote controls, garage door openers, people beaming Palm data, and what have you.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)
          Martin Turner from Manchester Computing gives a very interesting talk on this subject periodically at visualisation conferences. I don't have my notes to hand, but I'll see what I can remember...

          The optic nerve is actually a lot lower bandwidth than you would expect it to be; it has nothing like the capacity to send the amount of visual data you think you see. One of the biggest tricks your eye does is something a lot like run length encoding. It sends differences in light levels between adjacent cones,

    • All I want is a grid of PV cells with appropriate filtering circuitry etc installed directly into my retina, and a variable (deformable) lens installed to replace my cornea, with maybe another one so that I can have zoom without having things move (much) inside my eye. The former can provide things like IR vision, and if it can transmit a very short distance, recording, albeit only in greyscale without having redundant elements and color-pass filters. All I care about is IR. And the zoom! That would be so a
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        One of the real challenges (I would imagine) such as this chip implant on the retina is keeping it in place. Retina surgery alone isn't guaranteed. The fluid pushing against that lining can vary with age or even something like cabin pressure from an airplane ride. The synergy between medicine and engineering here really is a marvel example of our body's design and function. It's a testament to both. Personally, I prefer non evasive enhancements for what you mention; like a disposable super contact lens.
    • by monopole (44023) on Friday February 16 2007, @07:00PM (#18046274)
      This must be stopped until HDCP is implemented for the visual cortex. Otherwise people will be able to see protected content without DRM! Of course once reliable HDCP is implemented it should then be mandatory, plugging the analog hole once and for all!
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by toriver (11308)
          Modding any post in this thread as insightful is like a pun, that's probably the reason. Must be.
    • by indigest (974861) on Friday February 16 2007, @07:12PM (#18046392)
      The possibilities here are very intriguing. The study that the article mentioned used a pair of glasses with a camera. But there's no reason why those glasses/cameras would need to be on your face. You could literally set up eyes in the back of your head, a security camera monitored by yourself, or expand your field of vision to be much larger. Also, you could set up a virtual reality sim just by playing back a recorded stream of visual data into your implant.

      Of course, the possibilities for mischief with such an implant are also endless. These things would be in high demand for poker games and high school locker rooms and about a billion other things that criminals and perverts will think up.
    • I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.
  • Interesting (Score:4, Funny)

    by scoot80 (1017822) on Friday February 16 2007, @06:17PM (#18045840) Journal
    So the image is recieved wirelesly into the brain basically. I wonder if they get any interference.. or can they maybe pick up TV channels?... that would be a bonus.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      I thought more about the shock from some prankster 'toothing goatse images around to unsuspecting phones.
    • can they maybe pick up TV channels?... that would be a bonus.

      Not when the MPAA finds out about it. Then they'll either force you to watch commercials or else send you C&D letters to make you stop seeing. Remember, bionic eyes clearly induce people to use them for watching copyright-violated material.

      Canadians, who are a little smarter, will just assume that everyone's bionic eyes are used to watch infringing material and will charge a tax on bionic eye hardware and pay the industry a cut.

      If we'r

  • by abradsn (542213) on Friday February 16 2007, @06:23PM (#18045912) Homepage
    Literally, this will definately benefit my eye condition. I hope that this research turns out to be helpful. From what I understand so far though, it is just prolonging the inevitable... but hey, that's better than nothing.
  • The procedure was shown on the Apple computer commercial. [youtube.com]
  • Review (Score:3, Funny)

    by Quzak (1047922) on Friday February 16 2007, @06:26PM (#18045942)
    +3 For the technology +2 For it actually working (would like to see more results data from a reputable source) +2 For bridging the gap between biological and technological distinctiveness (Resistance is futile) -2 For it being Wireless (prone to interference and hacking to the Nth degree, assuming this prototype has no security subsystems installed)
    • -2 For it being Wireless (prone to interference and hacking to the Nth degree, assuming this prototype has no security subsystems installed)

      It has to be wireless for now, because having a port embedded in the skin isn't currently practical. However "they" have discovered that deer's antlers get tied into the skin because they have a highly convoluted surface, with a lot of area, and for some reason the skin is able to attach to this. This is the technology we need to perfect to have ports in the skin.

      In t

      • and I want studs for mounting sunglasses that don't have to go around my head.

        You could get that right now if you wanted. Haven't you seen the scalp implants that let people mount metal spikes on their heads? Sort of a stainless-steel mohawk?

        IMO it's not worth the trouble though. If the stud gets snagged on something when you're falling or moving fast for some other reason, you're going to do some serious damage to yourself.
      • In the ideal situation you would have some sort of nonchemical energy storage mechanism embedded inside of you, like perhaps a pair of counterrotating flywheels or something (but imagine what happens if the bearings fail) and you'd charge your system through the port.

        I'd prefer a fuel cell that runs off of the glucose and oxygen already present in the bloodstream...
        =Smidge=
        • by Dunbal (464142)
          who is to say they can't turn you into a damn big d-cell?


                Whoa, so the matrix is real? ;)
    • I believe Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age" had a guy whose vision had been hacked by nanorobots to deliver a small add banner at the periphery of his vision.

      I think, given the choice, wireless is OK for this stage. Wireless invaders will only attack if they're within signal range and they have the motivation. Microorganisms will invade regardless. Any type of surgery or major laceration puts you at risk for infection, and if you have wires running into your head then you have a canal for germs to get t

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        True, but the alternative would be to have a cable protruding from the user's head

        If the eye is already defunct, why not remove the eye and implant the camera? It could probably be incorperated into an artifical eye with out much problem. Circuits and cameras are already tiny and the power requirements can't be very high. (nerves deal in microvolts?) A wearable inductive recharger and you are good to go. Reattach the muscle and you could even look around. I can understand the external camera for the earl
        • by FleaPlus (6935)
          If the eye is already defunct, why not remove the eye and implant the camera? It could probably be incorperated into an artifical eye with out much problem. Circuits and cameras are already tiny and the power requirements can't be very high. (nerves deal in microvolts?) A wearable inductive recharger and you are good to go. Reattach the muscle and you could even look around. I can understand the external camera for the early R&D, but I hope the final product is fully implanted.

          I imagine an external came
  • We're now one step closer to building a 1970's version of Lee Majors!

    Now if only the eye could make the cool bionic sound.

  • Hmm...wireless transmission of sight huh? Could ads and spam get transmitted that way?

    Reminds me of a Neal Stephenson book, where some tiny, minor character killed himself since he got infected with some ad that played in his vision 24/7. It might have been about Korean roach motel, but it's been too long since I've read it.

  • "This computer processes the image information and wirelessly transmits it to a tiny electronic receiver implanted in the wearer's head."

    What could possibly go wrong :)
  • Nice glasses (Score:2, Insightful)

    by wellingj (1030460)
    Doesn't make jordy laforge look so silly now does it?
    http://www.newscientisttech.com/data/images/ns/cms /dn11198/dn11198-1_600.jpg [newscientisttech.com]
    http://www.newscientisttech.com/data/images/ns/cms /dn11198/dn11198-2_650.jpg [newscientisttech.com]

    By the looks of things the signals going to be pretty small so I don't imagine it
    would send much interference. But it might recieve a buch though if it has to be ulra
    sensitive though. Oh well it's not like you need more than 30-40fps.

    On the other hand what if you woke up, switched on your recie
  • I have a screen-print (apparently not aging well) of some of my hobby software where Slashdot posted a similar story a number of years ago -- the point of this post is that they chose a better "department" back then: screen-print of some software [remote-control.net]
  • It reads like some cybernetic breakthrough, but the device is nothing special. The breakthrough will be when surgical skills have advanced enough to actually attach thousands of individual sensor outputs to specific retinal nerves, along with refining the electrical exchange between the two in a manner that more closely approximates nature. The eye is more complex than its connection to the brain, also. There are 100 times as many photoreceptors as there are axons to the visual cortex, so there's a lot goin
  • This is fucking amazing, and huge. No, really.

    I think for younger people (who have lost sight due to some premature condition or tragedy), this should be Government funded. I would respect a country's government who gave sight to it's citizens. No one should be blind.
  • I have to believe that having not seen in over 50 years, the first glimmer of anything visual would make you cry.
  • Cadmium sulfide (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Weaselmancer (533834) on Saturday February 17 2007, @12:17AM (#18048238)

    Once this thing gets working well, use cadmium sulfide [wikipedia.org] in the receptors and you'd be able to see in a wider visual band than normal eyes. Infrared and ultraviolet would become "visible". You would see heat signatures in the dark, and have nightvision among other [wikipedia.org] things. [wikipedia.org]

    • by Dunbal (464142)
      I wonder how the brain would handle seeing a near-infinite resolution image coming out of the organic eye, and a VGA/SVGA image from the implant.


            Probably in the same way that the brain handles everything else. Horribly to begin with, headaches, vertigo, vomiting. And a couple months later, you'll hardly notice it.
    • by Dunbal (464142)
      Once you've got a digital video stream transmitting to the brain it wouldn't be too hard to manipulate it to produce "hallucinations".


            It wouldn't be to hard to copyright the video stream either. You just got a letter from the MPAA asking for $3000 because you took your bionic eye to the movies and illegaly copied one of their films...
    • Might be a cheaper way to kinda check it out. Most color blind people are trichromatic like everyone else, but very weak in red or green perception. Most are weak-green (deutan anomalous), but I happen to be weak-red (protan anomalous). If weak, you may be able to get a rough idea how an image would appear by amplifying your weak portion of the spectrum in images. It's the inverse of the process they use to show normal color vision people what color-blind people probably see where they drop the various