MIT Microchip Could Someday Restore Vision 43
CWmike writes "Researchers at MIT have developed a microchip that could, one day, enable blind people to regain some level of vision. By combining wireless technology, eyeglasses equipped with a camera, and the chip, they should be able to restore at least some vision to people who suffer from retinitis pigmentosa or age-related macular degeneration, two of the leading causes of blindness, the scientists say. The chip, which is designed to be attached to the eyeball, would pick up images sent from the camera and electrically stimulate the nerve cells that normally carry visual input from the retina to the brain. The chip is sealed in a titanium case to keep water from leaking in and damaging its circuitry. At this point, the technology is not expected to restore normal vision, but MIT said it should provide the ability to navigate around a room or walk down a sidewalk. 'Anything that could help them see a little better and let them identify objects and move around a room would be an enormous help,' said Shawn Kelly, a researcher in MIT's Research Laboratory for Electronics. 'If they can recognize faces of people in a room, that brings them into the social environment as opposed to sitting there waiting for someone to talk to them.'"
Neat, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here are some questions I have about the chip:
- These chips/systems already exist. What's new about this MIT effort? The Computerworld article was very sparse.
- There's a great deal of bidirectional communication that goes on in normal eyes-- information not only flowing from eye to brain, but from brain to eye as well. As far as I know these tech just discards these signals. Is this important?
- Last I heard, this sort of technology was approaching 1000 effective pixels of visual information (assuming ideal electrode placement). Has this effort from MIT pushed this boundary? How does '1000 effective pixels' compare to the eye's effective resolution? Can we put normal vision in terms of pixel resolution?
- I've read about shunting tactile senses (for instance, the nerves on a person's tongue) over to a digital videocamera. I believe the military has done a fair bit of research into this. Could this sort of approach be viable for helping the blind function as well? Could it become the preferred approach since it seems less invasive than ocular- and neuro-surgery?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I am not an expert in the field or otherwise well-informed about the subject matter at hand, but it seems to me the major differences here are that it's wireless and that it communicates with a glasses-mounted camera that would hopefully be less obvious to a casual observer than the Borg-like implants that have been used to provide limited sight to the blind in the past. The article is somewhat lacking in the details department.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; I've merely arrived at these conclusions
Re: (Score:2)
I am not an expert in the field or otherwise well-informed about the subject matter at hand, but it seems to me the major differences here are that it's wireless and that it communicates with a glasses-mounted camera that would hopefully be less obvious to a casual observer than the Borg-like implants that have been used to provide limited sight to the blind in the past.
So how is this different from the same thing that everyone is working on? Including, I might add, a consortium which includes the group who invented the cochlear implant [bionicvision.org.au].
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
- Last I heard, this sort of technology was approaching 1000 effective pixels of visual information (assuming ideal electrode placement). Has this effort from MIT pushed this boundary? How does '1000 effective pixels' compare to the eye's effective resolution? Can we put normal vision in terms of pixel resolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Dynamic_range
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's *old* news (Score:3, Insightful)
Similar things have been reported for *at least* 30 years.
In the 1970's, I recall a sensor that clipped to eye glasses and connected to electrodes on the back of the user. I want to say that it was 16x16 or 32x32, but it provided enough "vision" to navigate and see objects.
A few months ago, iirc, was a report which used nerves on the tongue.
These reports are evolutionary, not revolutionary. A good thing, but it's not as if this is a breakthrough changing the world from "nothing to let the see" to "now the
Re: (Score:1)
5 megapixels? (Score:2)
Last I heard, this sort of technology was approaching 1000 effective pixels of visual information (assuming ideal electrode placement). Has this effort from MIT pushed this boundary? How does '1000 effective pixels' compare to the eye's effective resolution? Can we put normal vision in terms of pixel resolution?
To get an idea of the eye's effective resolution, think of a very high resolution monitor -- resolution so high that you couldn't tell the difference between it and a higher-resolution monitor sitting next to it. That's how much resolution the eye has.
Reviewers used to say that you didn't need a digital camera with a resolution greater than 5 megapixels, unless you were going to enlarge it. So 5 MP, which is about a 2,000x2,000 pixel line, sounds like a good guess. That's about 0.1 degree per pixel, which s
For the purpose of restoring vision. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For the purpose of restoring vision. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gaming and tech development. (Score:2)
I have to agree, even games that allow you to research multiple things at one time don't really give you any benefit to doing so. Space Empires, I'm looking at you.
Doing Tech 1 then 2 then 3 will get you the three techs just as fast as doing 1+2+3, with the added benefit that you'll get 1 and 2 a couple turns faster.
Personally, I'd do something like give a 1-10% advantage per additional tech you're researching to show the benefits of synergy and that a scientist suited for researching lasers is probably no
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why slashdot sucks ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Geordi will be happy (Score:1)
Gee, I wonder where [wikipedia.org] they got this idea from...
Eye will pass, thanks. (Score:2)
I have no desire to live with "coleco vision" for the remainder of my life.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is as "great" as modern hearing aids, I will pass. I have no desire to live with "coleco vision" for the remainder of my life.
As opposed to "no vision" for the remainder of your life?
It's good enough ... (Score:2)
... to keep a Cadillac driver on the road for a few more decades. Also, if they can put their glasses up on the dashboard, not being able to see over the steering wheel will no longer be an issue.
cybernetic implants are cool (Score:1)
http://www.iblindness.org/ [iblindness.org]
Just not profitable enough I suppose.
Great idea, but... (Score:1)
"Damn it! Where are my glasses!?"
People w/macular degeneration can already navigate (Score:2)
People with macular degeneration can already walk down a sidewalk or navigate around a room. They still have peripheral vision.
The macula is the spot at the center of the retina which has the highest concentration of receptors and the highest resolution.
It's damn useful, and it's hard (though not impossible) to read and identify faces without it. But macular degeneration spares the peripheral vision, so people can still get around. It's not "cane-tapping" blind. There are also some methods of using the peri
Re: TFA, Is this a Mohawk or American fast food (Score:1)
Similar UCSC research commercially available 2009 (Score:1)