These results were presented by Professor Mark Humayun of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology annual meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Dr. Humayan said, “We have successfully completed enrollment and implantation of three patients in the trial. And we have found that the devices are indeed electrically conducting, and can be used by the patients to detect light or even to distinguish between objects such as a cup or plate in forced choice tests conducted with one patient so far.”
Other researchers continue work to develop this and similar devices to restore sight to the blind, most notably Dr. William Dobelle, whose work was covered in a Wired magazine cover article. However, Dr. Dobelle’s work requires electrodes to be implanted directly on the surface of the brain. Dr. Humayun’s work replaces brain surgery with more accessable eye surgery and is thus seen as a major advance in making vision replacement to the blind a potenial reality.
I know the research is meant for the blind, but think about if eventually you could get implants adjacent to your eyes and these implants could take remote feeds from same, behind you or around a corner.
Actually, would probably be more useful like a data feed overlay of your natural vision much like Ahhhhnold had in the Terminator. Basically, have one of these retinal implants displaying data that you’re accessing wirelessly from the net.
Just a thought.
A friend of mine told me recently that among the deaf community there is a lot of opposition to genetic and electronic attempts to eliminate deafness; I don’t know if the visually-impaired (or whatever is the buzz-word of the moment) share the similar concerns, but they are listed hereafter as my friend explained them to me. Apparently many deaf people are worried that if, say, 80% of deafness could be eliminated it would not only destroy what is a very real community/culture in it’s own right, but it could actually have a negative impact on the amount of facilities extant that allow deaf people to enjoy a quality of life equal to that of those who can hear. The theory is that what is a very vocal minority now, would be reduced in number and have to fight harder to put pressure on [for example] cinemas to install technology compatible with hearing-aids. Added to which, while many of us know personally – or are at least aware of – deaf people in our everyday lives, if they were to be more rarely encountered the old prejudices may begin to creep back.
The arguments seem flawed to me (are we not to try to provide the best quality of life possible for as many people as possible?) and I haven’t thoroughly investigated my friend’s claims yet, so if anyone has thoughts or opinions based upon real-life experience I would be interested in hearing them.
…about opposition in the hearing-impaired community to attempt eliminating DEAFNESS?? Sounds like injured, frightened animals who are caged for their own protection during recuperation. Once they are well and the cage is opened, they might hesitate to use the door because they don’t understand the freedom that awaits.
If any hearing-impaired person saw Heather Whitestone on television recently as she HEARD her sons for the first time with the aid of cochlear implants, there would be no hesitation in reaching for what was once considered unattainable. The look on her face spoke volumes– in tones each viewer could hear. Possible prejudice won’t work as an excuse for delaying progress. Prejudice like the poor: We’ll have it among us always. Whatever condition shackles a person physically or mentally, surely the gift of science is that it holds the key to freedom.
Actually my friend wasn’t joking. She was filling me in on a discussion that had taken place at the end of her sign language class. The classes are becoming more and more popular and someone wondered whether this would be the case if there were less deaf people around. The discussion that followed led to the points outlined in my previous comment. I can understand that not every case of deafness will be curable, and appreciate that today it is possible for a deaf person to find someone who speaks sign-language relatively easily compared to fifty years ago. I think the underlying cause of concern was that those who could not be ‘doctored up’ and allowed to hear would face a world that would feel less need to learn their language (I know I’d be put out if evryone forgot English and started speaking Flemish). I realised that I don’t actually know any completely deaf people, nor could I speak with them if I did, which made me question what my own prejudices might be.
Of course, fear breeds prejudice. Fear results from ignorance. That’s why enlightened people strive daily to combat ignorance. I have a child whose hodge-podge of neurological disorders lacks the dignity of a name, even. Yes, it’s frightening to live in a world where very few understand how you function, but scientific advances which might enable the blind to see, the deaf to hear are not a threat. They are closer to a miracle. I’m sorry, but I don’t understand how any impaired person could hesitate to applaud breakthroughs which might enhance the quality of anyone else’s life. Alan, if you spoke the way my son has to speak, you would simply try phrasing your ideas a different way when listeners couldn’t understand you, or you would try spelling out the words. Neither my son nor I would EVER wish on another that he or she be bound by the same disorder so that they could share equally the same alternative communication.
I’m not trying to sound pompous. I simply cannot understand any concept of resistance to technology which would help those who cannot hear to HEAR, or those whose eyes are dim to SEE.
I try to imagine the frustrations that must be faced daily by anyone suffering from a disability of any nature, and then try to imagine refusing an offer to remove, or at least ease, those frustrations. It makes no sense to me. And there I shall let the matter rest; unless anyone would like to proffer an opposing point of view…
Thanks for sharing your comments:)
I wonder what would happen if you took someone with normal vision and have them one of the retinal (or neural) implants meant to restore sight.
I seriously doubt you’d get a “data feed overlay” type effect, more thanlikely your brain wouldn’t know how to process the combined signals coherently or simply filter out the data stream as noise.
The only way I can really see doing it is to completely replace the normal visual stream with another with the data in place… and I doubt people will be lining up to have their eyes gouged out and replaced.
On the plus side, it will probably be legal in the US to do artificial retina research. It’s illegal to do the occipital lobe neural implants… though that’s probably a more useful area to research (as it would let lessons learned in persuit of one sense to, possibly, be reused to simulate or recreate other senses).