7
Researchers bypass optic nerve, deliver images directly to blind woman's brain |...
source link: https://www.techspot.com/news/92011-researchers-bypass-optic-nerve-deliver-images-directly-blind.html
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Researchers bypass optic nerve, deliver images directly to blind woman's brain
Brain implant allows patient to see shapes, letters after more than 16 years of blindness
By Jimmy Pezzone October 31, 2021, 7:17 AM 40 comments
Through the looking glass: A Spanish woman lost her vision due to a rapidly progressing condition affecting her optic nerves. With the help of researchers and a small electrode implanted in her visual cortex, she has taken the first steps toward restoring her vision... without using her eyes.
Berna Gomez's world was turned upside down when she was diagnosed with toxic optic neuropathy at age 42. The rapidly progressing disease deteriorated the Spanish science teacher's optic nerves and rendered her blind in a matter of days. Thanks to researchers from the University of Utah and Miguel Hernandez University in Spain, Gomez may now have a chance at restoring her functional vision.
The breakthrough was achieved using an implant known as the Moran|Cortivis Prosthesis. The device, which consists of 96 individual electrodes, is implanted directly in the patient's visual cortex. Once in place, the implant's electrodes can be stimulated in specific combinations to deliver "images" directly to the patient's mind.
According to the Journal of Clinical Investigation, the implant has successfully presented images ranging from spots of light and horizontal lines to some uppercase and lowercase letters.
The achievement is a huge step forward in the quest to restore vision. Unlike retinal implants, this specific advancement completely bypasses the recipient's optic nerve and delivers information directly to the brain's vision center. This direct stimulation provides the potential to deliver images to patients despite any conditions preventing their optic nerve from communicating with their brain.
The silicon-based microelectrode, known as the Utah Electrode Array, is not new technology. The roughly 4mm device's history stretches as far back as 2006, where it was the subject of a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) collaboration with University of Utah researchers.
The study focused on developing and evaluating a peripheral nerve interface that would allow artificial limbs to move using only thought. In 2019 the University's biomedical engineering team successfully used the array in conjunction with a prosthetic arm to provide a patient with "feeling" via an artificial limb.
Image credit: Human brain from Robina Weermeijer, Berna Gomez from Moran Eye Center
VIDEO: What Ever Happened to Winamp?
User Comments: 40
Got something to say? Post a comment
October 31, 2021 7:55 AM
Dimitriid
The interesting part is looking at how she processes the signal and then compare it to how would a person who was born blind: they would have no concept or reference of what an image even is so how would the information be processed by them? Would their brain would just interpret this as something completely and utterly different meaning we just "learn" everything or would simulating the same parts of the brain would end up producing somewhat similar results so not being able to "see" but being able to process information on an instinctual level like get away out of the path of moving objects and such? Or just somewhere in between even.
- 9 people liked this
- Reply
October 31, 2021 10:58 AM
RudyBob
The interesting part is looking at how she processes the signal and then compare it to how would a person who was born blind: they would have no concept or reference of what an image even is so how would the information be processed by them? Would their brain would just interpret this as something completely and utterly different meaning we just "learn" everything or would simulating the same parts of the brain would end up producing somewhat similar results so not being able to "see" but being able to process information on an instinctual level like get away out of the path of moving objects and such? Or just somewhere in between even.
Those are good questionsThe interesting part is looking at how she processes the signal and then compare it to how would a person who was born blind: they would have no concept or reference of what an image even is so how would the information be processed by them? Would their brain would just interpret this as something completely and utterly different meaning we just "learn" everything or would simulating the same parts of the brain would end up producing somewhat similar results so not being able to "see" but being able to process information on an instinctual level like get away out of the path of moving objects and such? Or just somewhere in between even.
- 1 person liked this
- Reply
October 31, 2021 11:56 AM
Uncle Al
The human brain has unlimited capability to grasp complex ideas and concepts much like an infants brain grasps the idea's of light, dark, images, etc. While it would probably take somewhat longer, it certainly would not be any longer than a new born. Regardless of all that, this is certainly a very significant advancement in medicine and the use of other means to enhance it!The interesting part is looking at how she processes the signal and then compare it to how would a person who was born blind: they would have no concept or reference of what an image even is so how would the information be processed by them? Would their brain would just interpret this as something completely and utterly different meaning we just "learn" everything or would simulating the same parts of the brain would end up producing somewhat similar results so not being able to "see" but being able to process information on an instinctual level like get away out of the path of moving objects and such? Or just somewhere in between even.
- 1 person liked this
- Reply
October 31, 2021 1:23 PMBullwinkle M
Who's brain are you referring to ?The human brain has unlimited capability to grasp complex ideas and concepts
Obviously not Alec Baldwin's ?
Try pumping NRA gun safety ad's directly into his brain and watch it short circuit
- 1 person liked this
- Reply
VR, private porn viewing, augmented reality. all a very long way off but possible?
October 31, 2021 2:39 PM
p51d007
Every year I get an eye check. I've been going to the same place for decades.
Every time the doc comes in, I ask him if the bionic eye is ready. He laughs, says
no, and I say they must still be having trouble making that boop boop boop sound
like it did on the TV show.
Every time the doc comes in, I ask him if the bionic eye is ready. He laughs, says
no, and I say they must still be having trouble making that boop boop boop sound
like it did on the TV show.
October 31, 2021 2:54 PM
cliffordcooley
Alec may be the one that pulled a killing trigger. But he is not the only one to blame. I'm also willing to bet the same could have happened to any of us. Long periods without incidents and safety grows lax for all of us. Especially for people living in the fast lane. This is not a Alec Baldwin problem. It is a problem on a much larger scale. If you want to address the issue. Pointing a finger solely at Alec Baldwin is a cheap shot at denying the true problem.Obviously not Alec Baldwin's ?
Try pumping NRA gun safety ad's directly into his brain and watch it short circuit
- 4 people liked this
- Reply
October 31, 2021 3:03 PMTrapped Nowhere
How'd we go from blindness to guns
- 7 people liked this
- Reply
October 31, 2021 3:36 PMbviktor
What does Baldwin have to do with anything? He was told there's no live bullet in the gun, and he practiced pulling and shooting the gun, that he was supposed to do on scene afterwards.Who's brain are you referring to ?
Obviously not Alec Baldwin's ?
Try pumping NRA gun safety ad's directly into his brain and watch it short circuit
- 3 people liked this
- Reply
October 31, 2021 3:50 PM
pcnthuziast
Off topic, but I'll play. Alec will receive judgement from the creator for murder. Period. So will whoever was directly responsible for loading the gun with live rounds. Gun safety on set should extend to precisely this: The one pulling the trigger should have enough knowledge of firearms and their use that just prior to firing the shot, they themselves should remove the cartridge and inspect the rounds and have the knowledge to be aware of exactly every detail of them including, but not limited to, whether or not they are live. Period.
Guns aren't toys or props. They are weapons designed to end life. Period.
Guns aren't toys or props. They are weapons designed to end life. Period.
October 31, 2021 4:13 PMBullwinkle M
It is irrelevant if he was told the gun was ColdWhat does Baldwin have to do with anything? He was told there's no live bullet in the gun, and he practiced pulling and shooting the gun, that he was supposed to do on scene afterwards.
You MUST treat every gun as if it were Hot!
Rules are already in place to prevent the killing which Baldwin ignored
Baldwin ignored those rules and now wants to implement more rules to prevent such a disaster on everyone else except himself because he will ignore any new rules as well
You do not point a gun at the camera crew (Cold or Hot) and you certainly would never pull the trigger unless you are Alex Baldwin
You do not have 1 homicide among 3 misfires and then call it 1 in a Trillion chance unless you are Alex Baldwin
Well, at least he's not a quitter
Baldwin finally found that Bloody Red October he's been searching for
October 31, 2021 4:32 PMDimitriid
You know, I keep hearing this argument and don't worry: I'm not about to pass judgement on Baldwin for good or ill.Rules are already in place to prevent the killing which Baldwin ignored
But we wouldn't even need any rules at all if we didn't have actual guns capable of loading actual ammunition when all you need is a prop with a blocked off barrel and blocked off bullet loading mechanism.
In the past I know practical effects were useful but if we can release like 5 hours of Thanos we can probably afford to use a tiny bit of CGI to add a muscle flash. Even kids on youtube with toys are capable of just using photoshop effects in that look convincing enough with a tiny bit of clever angles and editing, yet these arguments from gun enthusiasts about how incredibly safe guns as prop can be if you follow the protocols yet I never see an argument as to why do you even need an actual gun and not just a blocked off, functionally useless piece of metal instead.
- 4 people liked this
- Reply
I was gonna deflect into the Election Steal Big Lie, but am outclassed before I even got started.How'd we go from blindness to guns
Since this has not already been answered: Can she play Crysis?
- 3 people liked this
- Reply
October 31, 2021 4:58 PMBullwinkle M
The only rules you need are......But we wouldn't even need any rules at all if we didn't have actual guns capable of loading actual ammunition when all you need is a prop with a blocked off barrel and blocked off bullet loading mechanism.
Any time a real gun is used, you must hire a "Professional Actor", not Alec Baldwin
Same with the crew!
But it was a low budget production and everything was rushed
The professional crew walked off the set because of the many problems being overlooked at the time, and now being denied by management
[link]
October 31, 2021 5:16 PMBullwinkle M
No, it could not happen to any of usAlec may be the one that pulled a killing trigger. But he is not the only one to blame. I'm also willing to bet the same could have happened to any of us. Long periods without incidents and safety grows lax for all of us. Especially for people living in the fast lane. This is not a Alec Baldwin problem. It is a problem on a much larger scale. If you want to address the issue. Pointing a finger solely at Alec Baldwin is a cheap shot at denying the true problem.
Some people "JOIN THE NRA" and learn gun safety
The true problem is Alec Baldwin and people like him
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE
ALEC BALDWIN DOES!
October 31, 2021 5:24 PMDimitriid
Yeah no: that does not answers my question. There is no need for a real gun at all. "Small budget" isn't an issue precisely because of my example: kids with nothing but a laptop and an iphone can do prop guns convincingly with something like a bb gun or a well painted piece of wood by just being clever about the shots and photoshopping in a muscle flash and such.The only rules you need are......
Any time a real gun is used...
The fact that there's so much tangents and whataboutism about this issue makes me feel like most people foreign to America feel when talking to Americans about guns: You all act and talk like weird, obsessed mini golums when talking about guns.
- 1 person liked this
- Reply
October 31, 2021 5:25 PMcliffordcooley
And your job is not working with props all day long either is it? It's easy to cast stones when we know nothing of the situation or the people involved.Some people "JOIN THE NRA" and learn gun safety
Are we going to get back to this amazing article? Or are we going to continue bashing someone because a large group had a very bad day?
- 1 person liked this
- Reply
October 31, 2021 5:51 PMBullwinkle M
We know all that we need toIt's easy to cast stones when we know nothing of the situation or the people involved.
The situation was rushed and the people involved were incompetent
October 31, 2021 5:55 PMBullwinkle M
No, there was no need for real guns on a rushed low budget set without professional actors or crewYeah no: that does not answers my question. There is no need for a real gun at all.
None at all
An unprofessional actor who has no training in weapons and is actively opposed to people owning guns should never be allowed to handle one on a set
October 31, 2021 5:59 PMDimitriid
By my count, the higher the budget the less of a need for real guns there is anyway. But I feel this partial concede you show is as far as we're going to get so I'll leave it at that.No, there was no need for real guns on a rushed low budget set without professional actors or crew
None at all
October 31, 2021 6:01 PMBullwinkle M
Smart moveBy my count, the higher the budget the less of a need for real guns there is anyway. But I feel this partial concede you show is as far as we're going to get so I'll leave it at that.
Those who do not have the proper training should never tell a professional what they should do
October 31, 2021 6:03 PMMr Majestyk
Deep learning organic style. Our brain hardwires circuits as we absorb information be it from any senses. 40% of brains processing is required for image processing. We should start with the brain of newborn infants and see how quickly neuronal circuits/synapses are growing/connecting as it vision develops.The interesting part is looking at how she processes the signal and then compare it to how would a person who was born blind: they would have no concept or reference of what an image even is so how would the information be processed by them? Would their brain would just interpret this as something completely and utterly different meaning we just "learn" everything or would simulating the same parts of the brain would end up producing somewhat similar results so not being able to "see" but being able to process information on an instinctual level like get away out of the path of moving objects and such? Or just somewhere in between even.
- 1 person liked this
- Reply
November 1, 2021 8:16 AMDimitriid
That's what I alluded to by "learning everything" but while thinking about this it dawn on me that beyond some of the more obvious autonomous functions like breathing, there's some that we've observed to be bypassing cognitive functions like moving your hand away from a fire or jumping out of the way or things that might look like dangerous creatures like snakes or big spiders or overall being startled.Deep learning organic style. Our brain hardwires circuits as we absorb information be it from any senses. 40% of brains processing is required for image processing. We should start with the brain of newborn infants and see how quickly neuronal circuits/synapses are growing/connecting as it vision develops.
From my extremely amateur recollection of it, those work as an in between: we learn to be fearful of certain things like spiders from our parents but once we "learn" that part it gets wired into a part of the brain that doesn't actually waits for the conscious part of the mind to process the information: we get startled and even if we learn to control it, there's the effects of adrenaline and the flight-or-fight response.
So while we "learn" what the visual information is there's certainly a lot of it that no longer operates by the normal channels of the brain so in theory, bypassing the learning and stimulating that process directly could allow a blind person not just to see but even if the image can't be processed or have no context, to respond accordingly to danger while still being technically blind assuming this process from the OP was partially successful only.
November 1, 2021 9:57 AM
wiyosaya
FWIW - Interestingly enough, to the best of my knowledge, the mind dreams with images - even in those born blind. [link] What that says to your questions, I am not sure, however, to me, it suggests that the mind has an innate ability to process visual imagery.The interesting part is looking at how she processes the signal and then compare it to how would a person who was born blind: they would have no concept or reference of what an image even is so how would the information be processed by them? Would their brain would just interpret this as something completely and utterly different meaning we just "learn" everything or would simulating the same parts of the brain would end up producing somewhat similar results so not being able to "see" but being able to process information on an instinctual level like get away out of the path of moving objects and such? Or just somewhere in between even.
I am willing to bet that those working on the tech have done some sort modeling on how the brain processes images, in fact, it would not surprise me if they have extensive fMRI scans of the parts of the brain that are responsible for processing image data. So, instead of relying on the brain having to reformulate its visual model for this device, it would not surprise me if they tried to make this device fit the model that the brain uses by default.
In fact, there has been reasonably successful research into recording the images seen by the brain while dreaming. [link]
- 1 person liked this
- Reply
November 1, 2021 9:59 AMwiyosaya
This. If I were able upvote you a million times for this comment, I would.Alec may be the one that pulled a killing trigger. But he is not the only one to blame. I'm also willing to bet the same could have happened to any of us. Long periods without incidents and safety grows lax for all of us. Especially for people living in the fast lane. This is not a Alec Baldwin problem. It is a problem on a much larger scale. If you want to address the issue. Pointing a finger solely at Alec Baldwin is a cheap shot at denying the true problem.
November 1, 2021 10:01 AMwiyosaya
I am sorry to disagree, however, I see comments like this are the true problem. Not people in the movie business that are told their prop guns are safe to fire.No, it could not happen to any of us
Some people "JOIN THE NRA" and learn gun safety
The true problem is Alec Baldwin and people like him
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE
ALEC BALDWIN DOES!
November 1, 2021 10:06 AMwiyosaya
Ah, so contradicting your original argument. Perfect, buh, buh, buh buhtism.We know all that we need to
The situation was rushed and the people involved were incompetent
November 1, 2021 10:14 AMDimitriid
Fascinating.FWIW - Interestingly enough, to the best of my knowledge, the mind dreams with images - even in those born blind. [link] What that says to your questions, I am not sure, however, to me, it suggests that the mind has an innate ability to process visual imagery.
I am willing to bet that those working on the tech have done some sort modeling on how the brain processes images, in fact, it would not surprise me if they have extensive fMRI scans of the parts of the brain that are responsible for processing image data. So, instead of relying on the brain having to reformulate its visual model for this device, it would not surprise me if they tried to make this device fit the model that the brain uses by default.
In fact, there has been reasonably successful research into recording the images seen by the brain while dreaming. [link]
Makes sense now thinking about it since we developed functioning eyes, at least in some fashion, way before we developed cognitive capabilities so it makes sense that there is no need to bypass processing images since that came later during our evolution.
It might even represent a unique challenge or way to solve challenges when it comes to getting closer to true AI.
November 1, 2021 11:18 AMBullwinkle M
Upvoting a Trillion times would still not make it trueThis. If I were able upvote you a million times for this comment, I would.
November 1, 2021 11:21 AMBullwinkle M
So then, you would be OK if I shoot and kill you as long as somebody tells me that my gun isn't loaded?I am sorry to disagree, however, I see comments like this are the true problem. Not people in the movie business that are told their prop guns are safe to fire.
Wow.......Just........WoW
November 1, 2021 1:25 PMcliffordcooley
That is not what any of us are saying. We do however realize accidents happen. And charging people with intent when accidents happen will never solve anything.So then, you would be OK if I shoot and kill you as long as somebody tells me that my gun isn't loaded?
The people that brought live rounds to work and lost track of (or intentionally planted) them are the only ones truly guilty. They are the ones that created this rippling effect that no one was anticipating.
You don't blame a kid for playing with his toys when one day one of them goes off. You find out where the toy came from and why it went off. Because to the best of your knowledge they were all safe. Because lets not kid ourselves that is exactly what props are. They are toys. Even though the gun was real. It was still labeled as a prop and used as a toy.
November 1, 2021 2:10 PMBullwinkle M
You must be confusing intent with incompetenceThat is not what any of us are saying. We do however realize accidents happen. And charging people with intent when accidents happen will never solve anything.
The people that brought live rounds to work and lost track of (or intentionally planted) them are the only ones truly guilty. They are the ones that created this rippling effect that no one was anticipating.
You don't blame a kid for playing with his toys when one day one of them goes off. You find out where the toy came from and why it went off. Because to the best of your knowledge they were all safe. Because lets not kid ourselves that is exactly what props are. They are toys. Even though the gun was real. It was still labeled as a prop and used as a toy.
Baldwin may not have had intent, but he was totally incompetent
For normal people, you never point "ANY" gun at a person unless your intent is to shoot them
If Baldwin did not understand this fact, he was "TOTALLY" incompetent and should never have been allowed near any gun (EVER)
And simply calling it a prop does not make it a toy
------------------------------------------------------------------
A rock will never understand how dumb the rock is
I could explain it another 100 times, but the rock doesn't "get it"
November 1, 2021 7:27 PMcliffordcooley
There was plenty of that to go around for everyone involved. You are intentionally singling out Baldwin. That is wrong and you know it. They were not on a firing range with the intent to use live ammo. They were on a production set with the intent to use props. The only reason I started this back and forth with you. Was because you were completely ignoring everyone else's part in this blame game.Baldwin may not have had intent, but he was totally incompetent
In this case the rock doesn't get it and calls others the rock.I could explain it another 100 times, but the rock doesn't "get it"
Why are you hung up on Baldwin? Why is his story more important to you that blind people being able to see again?
November 1, 2021 8:54 PMBullwinkle M
Let it go
You are wrong and you know it
Think of the blind who can now see
Not the blind who refuse to see
You are wrong and you know it
Think of the blind who can now see
Not the blind who refuse to see
November 1, 2021 9:09 PMcliffordcooley
Right back at you.Let it go
You are wrong and you know it
Think of the blind who can now see
Not the blind who refuse to see
November 2, 2021 12:57 AMcliffordcooley
I'm leaving this juvenile conversation.Na Uh.....
No, You're a Rock!
TECHSPOT : Tech Enthusiasts, Power Users, Gamers
TechSpot is a registered trademark. About Us Ethics Statement Terms of Use Privacy Policy Change Ad Consent Advertise
© 2021 TechSpot, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK