Bionic Eye Could Restore Vision

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."

Implants for healthy people

[Harmonious Botch]

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.

I am looking forward to this

[abradsn]

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.

Re:Implants for healthy people

[timeOday]

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.

Re:Implants for healthy people

[badboy_tw2002]

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!

Re:Implants for healthy people

[monopole]

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:Implants for healthy people

[skoaldipper]

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.

Nice glasses

[wellingj]

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 recievers so you could find
where your glasses were by looking at what was infront of them...wonder if they can
do this with car keys?

And one more idea, what about the aplication of remote sensing. You have the recievers
implanted into your head and use cameras around your house. Guess you would need to be
pretty paranoid to do that....

Re:Implants for healthy people

[blank axolotl]

I imagine that in the not too distant future some perfectly healthy geek will have one of these implanted.

The problem is, the signal is sent to the optic nerve according to the article -- which is already being used by your eyes if they are healthy. The signal from the camera would interfere the signal from your eye, effectively blinding it (probably). Therefore the current system is only useful to blind people who aren't using their optic nerve.

Re:Implants for healthy people

[KlaymenDK]

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:Implants for healthy people

[jamesshuang]

Speaking as a neuroscience major with some eye tracking-related research experience, eye movements have two components of control - top down, and bottom up. Top down control basically means your consciousness controls where your eyes are looking, and bottom up basically means sensory input drives a "saccade", an unconscious but fast movement of the eyes, normally to a surprising, quickly moving, or dangerous stimuli. Your top-down control is actually very powerful, and if the given stimuli are not too powerful, you can almost completely suppress saccadic movements and focus on one point.

You are correct in the low-bandwidth optic nerve. Your optic nerve is carrying already heavily processed and compressed information. Only about a million ganglia are connected to the photoreceptors in your eye. The fovea has a one to one correspondence with ganglia, which gives you the high acuity in the center of your vision. Out toward the periphery, more and more photoreceptors connect to each ganglia, which means any particular ganglia is active for a very large spatial area of stimulation. This is why your peripheral vision is not as acute as the center.

Also, to the person suggesting that the optic nerve was a bad connector design, it's not. It's possibly the best connector for the situation, as with most of mother nature's designs. The sclera (outside of the eyeball) is extremely tough, and having each individual ganglia poke through its surface would be foolhardy, and very dangerous. In fact, if that were the case, evolution would make sure you couldn't move your eyes, because if you do, you'd most likely sever a pretty nice batch of the axons heading to your brain. Also, having it near the center of vision is a pretty good idea too, in order to reduce signal latency from any one portion of the retina. A much more valid criticism, however, is why your retina is inverted. The photoreceptors are on the bottom, so light reaching them have already passed through multiple layers of cells and stuff layered on top. Admittedly, having the photoreceptors at the bottom means the opsin disks are more easily cleaned up by the pigmented epithelium after they're used, but why not have macrophage-like structures on top that could scrub the opsins?

Re:Implants for healthy people

[toriver]

Modding any post in this thread as insightful is like a pun, that's probably the reason. Must be.