Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    24 Nov '12 02:04
    It's just the beginning but a promising technology:

    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-11-patient-words-retina.html#ajTabs
  2. Standard member apathist
    looking for loot
    28 Nov '12 01:53
    Wonderful application of technology!

    I was wondering about people blind from birth: would restoring their vision ever really allow them to see? I found a short ScienceBlogs article (http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/11/11/can-a-blind-person-whose-visio/) about a 12-yo blind from birth, although she could determine night from day (so her neurons did have some training in vision). It took several months for her to recognize basic objects and navigate the world using sight, and at least seven years later there were still odd hiccups in her vision ability.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    29 Nov '12 00:55
    Originally posted by apathist
    Wonderful application of technology!

    I was wondering about people blind from birth: would restoring their vision ever really allow them to see? I found a short ScienceBlogs article (http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/11/11/can-a-blind-person-whose-visio/) about a 12-yo blind from birth, although she could determine night from day (so her neuron ...[text shortened]... using sight, and at least seven years later there were still odd hiccups in her vision ability.
    That sounds reasonable since the brain had not had visual input so the cells usually reserved for vision were used for other things and the vision paths had to be started up from scratch.

    There was a great american folk singer, Doc Watson, RIP, who was blind from the age of about 4. Now a person like that, if they had technological solutions for his vision, he would have been a lot ahead of someone who had been blind from birth. He had 4 years of vision so his visual cortex was being developed. Obviously, if someone like him had been blind for 50 years after the age of 4, a lot of those cells would have been diverted to other senses like hearing but he would have been ahead of someone using the same technology as someone blind from birth and getting the same technology.

    It is also clear this is just a proof of concept, the resolution is very low and it was clearly hard for the dude to make out the braille but as time goes by this technology will get better and better and you might end up like that guy on Star Trek, the one with the wrap around glasses that let him see more or less normally.

    Science is catching up with science fiction.
  4. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    11 Jan '13 09:36
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    That sounds reasonable since the brain had not had visual input so the cells usually reserved for vision were used for other things and the vision paths had to be started up from scratch.

    There was a great american folk singer, Doc Watson, RIP, who was blind from the age of about 4. Now a person like that, if they had technological solutions for his vis ...[text shortened]... glasses that let him see more or less normally.

    Science is catching up with science fiction.
    I think this has potential in the medium run. In the long run I see a more organic solution that uses a person's DNA to grow new retinae in a petrie dish that can be surgically implanted.
  5. 11 Jan '13 10:22 / 7 edits
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    I think this has potential in the medium run. In the long run I see a more organic solution that uses a person's DNA to grow new retinae in a petrie dish that can be surgically implanted.
    Why stop at replacing just the retina when you could replace the whole brain so that the connects are immediately just right for visual perception?
    (I am not serious)
  6. 11 Jan '13 18:31
    Originally posted by humy
    Why stop at replacing just the retina when you could replace the whole brain so that the connects are immediately just right for visual perception?
    (I am not serious)
    misprint: 'connects' should have been 'connections' i.e. brain connections.