Eye Transplant Enables Blind Boy to See 309
Chris Gondek points to this story carried by the Sydney Morning Herald, excerpting: "A one-year-old Pakistani boy saw the world for the first time yesterday through an eye donated by an Indian. Mohammed Ahmed gained partial vision after a difficult operation at the Agarwal Eye Institute in the southern city of Madras. Doctors said Ahmed, who was born blind, would get near-normal sight by the time he heads back to Karachi next week."
One year old? (Score:4, Interesting)
-FP??
Re:Careful... (Score:2, Interesting)
A very promising technique (Score:1, Interesting)
Which would you rather have? A human replacement eye, or a pinhole camera mounted behind a pair of sunglasses?
Re:Careful... (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you think are the chances of ever seeing a complete eye transplant ? In 10 years ? 50 ? 100 ? Or maybe never at all ?
Re:Careful... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thus my interest.
a "BladeRunner" level of futuristic technology. "I made your eyes", etc
I am working on it.... Seriously.....
It would presumably also be relatively easy to graft an artificial electronic "eye", to create vision enhanced cyborgs - or to plug a video feed straight into the optic nerve for the ultimate in immersive graphics.
There are folks that are working on these solutions as well. One guy has a good approach while the others are basing their solutions on flawed assumptions of the basic biology. We are working on correcting these flawed assumptions.
After the eye works, then what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I feel feel squicked just thinking about this, but I wonder if that kid will ever have really useable vision.
Re:Careful... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've thought about this a lot. There is some very promising research in the neuromuscular community that suggests that spinal motor neurons can rewire rather successfully. The problem is that the retina (and the "wires" (axons) that come off of it is a very complicated tissue and rewiring them might be too much to attempt even if you could 1) get the retinal neurons to survive and 2) get them to rewire properly and perform the precise pathfinding necessary. Immunological considerations are another issue, so the approaches I am interested in a other biological and possibly bionic approaches.
Re:Careful... (Score:3, Interesting)
My limited understanding as a lay person is that vision is dependent upon unimpeded development during a critical period at a very young age.
Re:Careful... (Score:5, Interesting)
Would re-wiring the nerves properly be THAT important in allowing the eye to send information to the Brain?
The brain has astounded scientists in it's ability to reconfigure itself so as to perform the same tasks, but using a different region
For example, I remember a story about a boy who had a hemisperectomy. Doctors expected him to wake up paralysed down one side of his body, but, when he did wake up, he could do everything he could before. Which, IMO, amazing.
Re:Anyone spare an eye for a computer nerd? (Score:5, Interesting)
Staring at a screen all day every day will cause your eyesight to get worse.
Put an eye chart on a wall 15 feet away, and look at it every 15 minutes. Your eyesight WILL improve.
Re:A very promising technique (Score:2, Interesting)
To be honest, yes. To me being blind sounds like hell and I couldn't imagine a worse disability. Obviously that's because I've been able to see for the past 20 years, so it might be different for someone who was born blind, but if someone said "vision and kidney/joint problems or blindness" it wouldn't be a particularly hard decision for me to make.
Re:Careful... (Score:2, Interesting)
You are hinting that it looks feasable to you for constructing interfaces to take a high-speed binary serial stream, using some sort of implantable serial to parallel converter, to generate a video signal which would be like that on the optic nerve and recognizible by the brain as video?
Bridging the gap between binary electronics and and the neurological networks of life has got to be the biggest "hack" of all time.
Although I feel I understand the former extremely intimately, I am absolutely in the cold about the data formats, even to the physical layer, in the latter. About the closest I can come to is its some sort of frequency modulated 70 millivolt pulses mimicing synaptic firings. But there are so many parallel channels! And I would take a very strong guess that a lot of information is located in relative timing of the firings.
Has your involvement in the neurological end of things given you any good leads on hacking the biological end of the interface?
I envy you guys.. as you are on the edge of unknown. The Frontier.
Re:A very promising technique (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose that it would be possible to make electronic connections deep into the brain (past the optic nerve) to get around this. But I would still be skeptical that the brain would ever be able to adjust to processing the new information.
State of Affairs ! (Score:4, Interesting)
What about the psychological aspect? (Score:5, Interesting)
Will this boy have the same problems?
bad, but not terrible (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not that bad. I'm not blind, but I do know and work with quite a lot of people who are, and you would be amazed at their independence and their quality of life. Like you suggested, many people who have never been able to see are perfectly content with their 'disability', and indeed can't imagine anything else. One of my friends says that if sight-restoring operations were possible in an everyday sense (which they certainly aren't), he would probably not take it. I'm not sure how typical of the blind community this is though.
The people who do really have trouble, obviously, are people who go blind later in life. They suffer more because they obviously didn't grow up blind, and thus didn't develop braille skills and other blind-person tricks like click-navigation (Seriously, a few people I know can point unerringly at furniture, doors and windows after clicking their fingers a few times!) These things take time, and a lot of older people unfortunately believe too strongly in the 'old dogs can't learn new tricks' maxim. The shock of this and the isolation that can come with blindness sometimes cause as many problems for older blind people than their actual physical condition.
An "Ask Slashdot" for the vision scientist(s) (Score:5, Interesting)
all those in favor say..... (Score:0, Interesting)
It could be a case of 'Blind' as in 'technically blind' such as light reception through the optic nerve but completely fuzzy due to interference? How about "There is a ball on the desk in front of you. Reach out and grab it if you can" ball being black on white table he could see it. Please post next article if there is full eyeball and op nerve transplant and subsequent vision recovery, thank you.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:True...Need more Funding. (Score:2, Interesting)
Somewhat of a personal experience (Score:5, Interesting)
They first had to do a plaster mold of his eye (the first one broke). And then he had to sit and wait for an acceptable donor.
When the cornea came in, they numbed his eye completely (locally) and all the surrounding area (he was fully awake when the procedure was done). And stitched in the new cornea.
Late one night, I was sitting in the hospital room with my dad -- this is late the very same day (mind you, I was only 14 when this was done) -- the nurse came in to change dad's eyepatch, reapply some goo, and just do a general check. Soon as the nurse walked out of the room, my dad grabbed me and said, "Holy shit, son. I JUST saw DEPTH! I can't f*ckin' believe it. I saw in three dimensions!!!!" -- I've never saw my dad so excited over something. I told him something to the affect of "welcome to the world of depth" or something stupid like that. He told me to wear one of his eyepatches for a day, then take it off and look at how different the world was.
Later on some months, I couldn't handle driving with him. "The TREES are coming AT ME!!!"
I guess we stereoptic folks take this stuff for granted sometimes.
--Xan
It depends also on the brain itself. (Score:2, Interesting)
It is because the center of vision finish developping at a certain age.
In your exemple, if the person is a ful grown adult when he looses his eyes, he has an already functionnating center of vision. And when he has a new eye, he'll be able to use it again.
If he lost his eye when he was a baby, and he waits until he's 20 before gettint a new eye, the new eye won't work, because during the childhood, the brain has only learned to use 1 eye.
The person has developped what is called "amblyopia" (he has only monoscopic vision).
That's why the article mentions that the transplantation happened when the child was only 1 year old. That means the child is still young enough to learn using both his eyes.
Another exemple are retinoblastomas. They are a form of cancer that can happen inside the eyeball. If it happens to an adult, as soon as the cancer is removed, the adult can see again.
But if this happens to a baby, the doctors have to be quick, because if they wait too long before diagnosting it and removing it, the child will develop "amblyopia" and won't be able to use this eye, even after the removal of the cancer.
Re:True...Need more Funding. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm just wondering how much precision is really required, and how much the brain can compensate for after the fact.
Does it even make sense to think of the optic nerve as a bundle of parallel wires?
Re:Man wtf Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
I want better eyes than human eyes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Careful... (Score:2, Interesting)
There's a famous experiment where a frog eye was removed and reattached inverted 180 degrees, and the frog never compensated (it would shoot it's tongue out the wrong direction when trying to eat flies, and had to be fed by hand for the rest of it's life) (vision scientist types - do you know the name of the guy who did the experiment?)
Another piece of evidence is the development of ocular dominance columns, which were hinted at in an earlier post - essentially, if you occlude one eye of a developing monkey, after a certain point, it will be permanently blind in that eye, because the input from the other eye reconfigures the brain to process only input from that eye - it is irreversible - thus the need for very early cataract correction in children.
(IANAVS, but I did pass my Neural Science course...)
Re:True...Need more Funding. (Score:2, Interesting)
In a way its healthy for our population when individuals don't live too long.
exp (Score:1, Interesting)
Read the article, hope his rehabilitation is not as painful as hers was.
Re:True...Need more Funding. (Score:3, Interesting)
Is the car the same car after fueling? After an oil change? After a new engine has been put in? After a paint job?
See, the same kinds of questions can be asked about something totally unrelated to neuroscience, and this is a huge clue.
And, don't make the mistake to presume these questions about cars can be answered by car mechanics. Where would they start? How would they determine what constitutes a car without engaging in reflection on concepts, viz. philosophy?
Second: I am not referring to the effects of hormones.
Third: I am only objecting to the "the brain is the person"-answer to the question on how personality is related to the body: the mind-body problem.
Clearly, I am a person, and I have a brain in my head. I don't think you can object to this.
But if you say a person is a brain (and, presumably, a brain is a person), you should believe all these sentences mean the exact same thing:
I am a person, and I have a brain in my head.
I am a brain, and I have a brain in my head.
I am a person, and I have a person in my head.
I am a brain, and I have a person in my head.
Mostly nonsense of course. So clearly, a brain IS NOT a person.
Nevertheless, if you ask me if personality is `stored' in the brain, or something analogous to that, I would probably agree. There has been ample evidence of the fact that brain damage can cause severe personality changes, the case of Phineas Gage comes -- obviously -- to mind.
But believing that "a brain is a person" is, as Hacker & Bennett argue, committing a mereological fallacy, that is, confusing wholes and parts of things.
I agree.
Re:True...Need more Funding. (Score:3, Interesting)
So, going by my meaning of 'person', I would say: 'I am a person, implemented as a brain, resident inside a head which I call mine'. Barring the possible changes produced by the different hormones, I'd still be me even if transplanted into a female body - and since you're communicating with me only by text, would you be able to tell the difference?
Re:Careful... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll be damned if I remember anything more than these few details about it, but I recall reading about an experiment where a college kid was given glasses that reversed his vision vertically.. Sky was down, ground was up. Naturally, he had a hard time for a few weeks, and had to have somebody lead him around and such, but his brain eventually did reconfigure to the changed situation and he was able to walk and function normally. Then he took off the glasses and was screwed up for another few weeks until it went and reconfigured back to normal.
Could there be some kind of difference between a frog's brain and a human brain, in its ability to change itself to changed inputs?
Re:True...Need more Funding. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:True...Need more Funding. (Score:1, Interesting)
were given goggles that "inverted"
everything they saw. - their eyes were fed a picture that to them was upside-down.
Initally, all had severe nausea and difficulty navigating.
reaching for a glass was difficult, drinking almost impossible.
after two weeks, every test subject's brain had "rewired" so that the upside-down view of the world appeared "right-side-up" to them.
when the glasses were finally removed, they had to go through the same readjustment period again.
Re:True...Need more Funding. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is from experiments on cats who were forced to wear some kind of optical contraption in front of their eyes from birth that reversed the field of their vision (i.e: everything was upside down). The cats learned to use this type of input and developed normal vision. When the contraption was removed, all cats are very confused for a while, but if cats are young enough at the time of the removal their brain did adjust after a while and they recovered normal vision again. If the cats were too old they remained confused.
If the connections were rewired randomly you'd get basically undecipherable noise from someone who had normal vision before. It's not clear if anyone would adjust. The cat experiment was much simpler with a simple geometry transform rather than random rewiring.