Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

New Device Could Overcome Low Vision 65

Posted by timothy from the gibsonian-artifacts dept.
Johan Jonasson cites a story at Wired which reads in part: "Low vision can't be corrected with medical procedures, glasses or contact lenses. But a new product from Microvision that uses lasers to 'paint' rows of pixels directly onto the eye is helping people with low-vision see clearly again." "The device, called Nomad, consists of two pieces: a small control module worn clipped on to a belt, and the head-worn display. The control module receives a video signal from a computer -- a desktop, laptop or a wearable computer -- which processes this signal to drive a low-power laser. The light is then scanned by a small mirror to create images." Essentially, it's the same type of display that many wearables come with, but with the image enhanced to compensate for the low-vision user's greater needs.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Device Improves Low Vision More

New Device Improves Low Vision

Comments Filter:
  • Good thing you got the name wrong. Had you been right, all these poor halfblind people might run in trouble when they go on holiday.

    WARNING Your eye enhancement has not been set to this region! You have already changed your region code 5 times! You will not be allowed to see the car coming in your direction at 70MpH! Have a nice day.
  • and it's called after me?
    I'm denying, I've slept for six years...
    ;-)

  • OK, I'm sure that the technology is considered safe, but then again so was DDT and Asbestos at one time.

    What if it simply erodes these peoples vision to nothing, then they can't have "true" perfect vision when something better comes along in a few years?

  • it mentions that it works by providing light intensity 15X that of a standard wearable display unit. Wouldn't there be a problem with persistance of vision, just like when you look at a light source or anything else brighter than ambient light?

    I'm not trying to condemn the technology or anything. I think its great that there's the potential that people who normally couldn't have their vision corrected will see an improvement. I'd like to see a more in depth article though, this one is not any better than an infomercial.

  • >Title pretty self-explaining... unless you can't >make the difference between 'i' and 'a'. At least I wasn't the only one who saw that.
    Nonexistent.
  • Dammit, don't we have enough portable hardware called 'Nomad' already? Sega's failed portable 16-bit system and Creative Labs' MP3 player come to mind.

    And yes, I know this was rather pointless.

    Nonexistent.
  • ...your boss would, of course, have a pointy head!
  • Or Unreal - that would be 31337!
  • Instead of a single laser and a mirror, though, that fictional device was pairs of red, green, and blue lasers onto goggles IIRC. I would rather have phenomenonscopic spectacles like the court reporter in the Diamond Age, I think.
  • a long with a picture of a complete tool [mvis.com] prodly wearing it.

    -Jon
  • I bet you don't wear glasses or contact lenses, do you? :o)
  • We need to link this with the adaptive vision system the new Sciensist had an article about which adjusts lens in the same way they do mirrors in a telescope, this allows all inperfections in the eye to be fixed and allows you to see an object at 20 meters that someone with 20:20 vision can see at 6

    James
  • Wow, I was just reading a book about this called The Visionary Position (great
    book, talks about the history of Virtual Reality). I haven't finished it, but
    this Nomad device was originally called the VRD (Virtual Retina Display, I
    believe). The concept was that of Tom Furness, the "father" of virtual
    reality. He created the first VR helmet back in the 60s by accident while
    working on a new design for cockpits. Tom and the HIT lab were working on the
    VRD and was licensing it to Microvision, whom they hoped would someday end up
    producing them themselves.

    A visitor to the lab once put on one of the first versions of the VRD. This
    person had one blind eye, and was able to see the images from the VRD in that
    eye. They brought the VRD to a person who was fully blind and that person,
    after locating the point of light, was also able to see the images. They
    determined that this would only work for a very small amount of cases, and that
    most blind people would not benefit from this device.

    Now, I don't mean to damage Microvision's reputation in any way, but at my
    current point in the book, the entire HIT lab is very concerned about their
    relationship with Microvision. They thought it would never end up producing or
    selling a unit. So as you can see, this is very interesting to me :)

    Does anybody have any information about whether or not the HIT lab is still
    working with Microvision on these things?
  • I smell troll. "Natural" evolution takes a l_o_n_g time to chance much of anything and then only in the direction of being better baby makers and providers for same. In case you haven't noticed that is not the area that human beings need improvement in. We happen to have evolved enough to have brains powerful enough (hopefully) to take over where natural evolution left off. From this time forward we are in charge of our own evolution. There is no reason whatsoever to belittle or assume the "evolutionary" inferiority of people with simple handicaps. There is actually some evidence that various types of problem can more often come with high intelligence using normal "natural" evolution.

    Our continued development and growth is now highly tied to improved intelligence. Yet natural evolution does not change the basics of a working system but adds to it. But our brain cases cannot get larger without seriously injuring future mothers. And human females show no sign of changing to accomodate larger-headed babies. The only way we will get higher intelligence on a large scale is through "articial" augmentation and to a lesser degree through improved nurturing and training for greater intelligence.

    Or would you prefer the race remain as stupid and increasingly unable to keep up with current needs as it is now?
  • Just a thought from those of us who have a master criminal mind (Not that I use it, no really) Anyways, I would be worried about a laser image being focuseed on the retina of my eye. If someone could tamper with the display device to increase the laser output, very bad things could happen. Hmmmm. . . Permanently burn "You are a looser" into Bill Gates' eye. This may have a use after all. D
  • With such a device, the genetics of it wouldn't matter. Like a bionic eye basically... Bionic hands/ears/whatever don't require genetic make-up... neither would this.
  • our focus should be on genetic therapy and propogation.

    I sincerely hope you're Troll. I really, really hope so. On second thought, genetic weeding sounds like a reasonable plan. Why not put all inferior beings in a gas chamber? Oh wait, that's been done before. And trust me, a "perfect human" is a contradiction in itself.

    Every scientist has to realize the power that comes from being able to start fresh instead of fix something that is already broken.

    Two words buddy: nuclear weapons. Hit a few buttons and we can start all over again.
  • More likely the next stage of evolution will be us using our technological expertise to repair or augment ourselves. In effect we'd be taking up the roll of creator and god in the various myths that serve as religion. Evolution at its heart is just the alteration of a species over time due to environmental change.

    For the first time in history we are arguably the largest impact on our own environment. We control the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the climate we live in through our own choices. Eventually we'll be able to control it in a more meaningful manner, or we'll die.

    Technology will also allow us to change whats in our genetic makeup; to essentially hit the backspace key over genetic defects that once would've been chalked up to fate, karma or god's will.

    It's not for everybody, but the era we live in now isn't for everybody. There are cultures in the U.S. that choose not to take part in technology beyond the horse and carriage.

  • WOW! And I thought the nomad was only for playing MP3s!!

    --

  • I found the url for adaptive optic glasses [newscientist.com] We need the two combined! James
  • You have to wonder if this is going to destroy your eyes that much faster?
    An example, a hearing aid works like a little amplifier sitting in or hanging on your ear increasing sound levels for the wearer

    Is there a risk that wearing a hearing aid increases "tolerance" to high volume, so that you need a stronger hearing aid,... ad infinitum?
    __
  • What happened to the traditional laser lab advice 'do not look into beam with remaining eye' ?

  • Please read this [slashdot.org]. It's the article the parent post was referring to.
  • I sincerely hope you're Troll. I really, really hope so. On second thought, genetic weeding sounds like a reasonable plan. Why not put all inferior beings in a gas chamber? Oh wait, that's been done before. And trust me, a "perfect human" is a contradiction in itself.

    Nope, not a troll, although some people with mod points really don't deserve them. Anyways, to respond to your statement... You are taking my argument and blowing it way out of proportion to how science fundamentally works. Natural selection is at work around us whether we realize it or not, what I am suggesting is that if we wanted to become "uber-humans" in any fathomable timespan, we would have to resort to purely genetics instead of bionics. Having someone born with a specific trait is preferable to adding it via mechanical means. This is not to insinuate that we need to do away with the "inferiors" either. We have our place in the homeless camps (vague reference to Gatacca). I also agree that science should not get too proud of itself either, lest one of our perfect subjects snaps and turns into the perfect psychopath.


    Two words buddy: nuclear weapons. Hit a few buttons and we can start all over again.

    You completely missed my point (yes, i see the sarcasm indeed). What I was trying to get across was that when a scientist is working on a project, it is poor judgment for him to use a dirty test-tube for his tests.
  • And what if some hacker taps into the laser, causing it to magnify its power a zillion times and drill straight through their head? Muhahahaha!!!

    Back in real life, ppl work this stuff out so that it doesn't burn out retinas.

    Grab.
  • Damn....you took the word right out of my mouth. There's way too many devices named Nomad. DOn't people ever check into this? Names are very important.
  • This is the same company... and I read the book too... they've been going to release a commercial product for years... basically this comes under the heading of I'll believe it when I actually see them available for sale somewhere... they seem to get an article on the technology printed every year or so and never deliver anything...

    .technomancer

  • which processes this signal to drive a low-power laser. The light is then scanned by a small mirror to create images

    Who needs a planetarium for midnight Pink Floyd laser shows, when you can just strap this gizmo onto your head and zone out? This is far better than those rave shows where some nose-studded guy with an Amiga pumps out some colored blotches on a wall.

    I can hear the cash registers klinking now... or maybe it's just the start of the song Money...

  • Well, given that my deck outside right now measures at 256 times brighter than my computer screen, it's probably not a problem. The human eye is adaptable to a huge range of brightnesses. I believe most retinal damage is caused by actual heating (if you focus on a a really bright, small object) or UV light. With retinal scan technology, I'd mostly worry about the scanning apparatus failing.
  • There's no WAY I'm letting a company named Microvision anywhere near my eyes. I saw what happened when I let Microsoft near my computer... the last thing I need is for me to see nothing but a BSOD all day.

    --sjd;

  • Man... could I have some glasses that make me.. (Score:3)

    by GauteL ( 29207 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @01:54AM (#594664)
    .. look like La Forge?

    I can see a whole generation of trekkies using this to improve their already good vision, with variable success.

  • Hrmm... (Score:4)

    by James Foster ( 226728 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @01:58AM (#594665)
    Maybe we could use this technique to become Tetrachromats?? We are the Tetrachromats. You will be assimilated. (vision-enabling laser and all...)
  • Who knows what could happen if the low vision person in question gets their Nomads mixed up... I wonder what six gigs of streamed MP3's would LOOK like anyway?

    "wow... I can see the music man. It's all one and zeroy."
  • How close is this to the funky glasses in _SnowCrash_, though?

    ~Tim
    --
    .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
  • I read about this being offered with AT&T Digital Cable.

    more information [ridiculopathy.com]

  • EM Noise (Score:2)

    by Ino ( 68074 )
    Now, wouldn't that become sensitive to EM noise? Heck - I remember a few years ago - I had my PC at my grandparents and when the damn thing was working their old radio (one with vacuum tubes) was catching quite a lot from the EM noise.

    It wouldn't be nice to start having "image black-outs" just because you passed under a high-voltage line :)

    --
  • Would these come with an anti-glare shield? I get headaches after staring at a monitor for a long time. I wouldn't want to get a headache just by looking at *anything*. Of course, rebooting every time I wanted to see more colors would be quite a headache, too.

    "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
  • The whole promise of retinal scanning displays is that they are 1) incredibly sharp, and can (theoretically) 2) be squeezed into much small packages than LCD based systems (because LCD systems have to have an array /somewhere/ and RSD's don't.

    True, this is currently only about the size of a normal LCD headset, but it will shrink, and I want one!!! (the little detail about see-through visual overlays has some /very/ interesting UI posibilities. Imagine themeable worlds in 20 years!)

    -- Crutcher --
    #include <disclaimer.h>
  • Option #1:
    Eyeglasses in about an hour. $200. Little thing of glass and metal. Durable. Easy to maintain.

    Option #2:
    Headpiece, wires, thing clipped on the belt, remote computer, video camera, etc.. A lot more than $200. A lot more material. Not Durable. Who knows the maintenance problems.

    -

    I'm no technophobe, but not every problem needs to be solved by a Pentium III.

    If the eyes work well enough to recieve light on the retina, then why not fix the eye with surgery, or just wear glasses?

    If the eye is truly faulty, then I think I device like this that interfaces directly with the optic nerve, because glasses or eye surgery wouldn't work in that case solve that problem.

    But _why_ would anyone, especially someone who has never heard of /., choose this contraption over a pair of glasses from Lencrafters?

    Steven

  • Wow, first we have bionic hands [slashdot.org]... Then mutants with advanced abilities [slashdot.org] walking among... Now star-trek visors!

    Maybe superhuman bionic cyber-commandos arn't so far in the future as we thought...

    (heck, we could even give them robotic combat exoskeletons [slashdot.org]!)

    Beware, humans. The future is now!
  • But I can't see the faces of people accross the room and read what's going on in their mind and I hate using glasses/lenses.
  • I believe Microvision and Xybernaut signed an agreement a few months ago.
  • When I was in grade school I had a vision degrading condition in my left eye, that was stopped with a surgical procedure. While that stabalized my vision in that eye, it stabalized it at 20/400, which means that I can see shapes and colors through a blur, making it only good for partial depth perception and left peripheral vision.

    It would be great to be able to use a device such as this to get a more productive use out of that eye. I rely on my right eye almost entirely for everyday use, as the vision in that is fine, but suppose I could use a wearable with display to the other...

    Sign me up!
  • Two words : Screen Saver
  • Read the top row? It has letters? I thought it was a picture of a horse!
  • I wonder if we could use this glasses to see the Matrix?

    Neo: "I can't go back, can I?"
    Morpheus: "Sure! Just take off those damn glasses."
  • When I see big guns, my vision goes 'low'...
  • Yes, I've read that. Obviously, if you obtain this ability or whatever you want to call it genetically you must be female since it's a female trait. But if we created a bionic eye which replaces our own or modifies it, then it wouldn't matter about the genetic makeup of your eye, would it?

  • Endless potential (Score:3)

    by rde ( 17364 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @02:22AM (#594682)
    Call me cynical, but if you have one of these things attached to a belt-worn PC (just wait until Bluetooth achieves ubiquity), then you're just asking for trouble. You walk down the street, and suddenly you're in the middle of a game of quake. It'd be a fascinating reason in court for going postal.
    Some proper observations: isn't this the same thing that (for example) engineers are going to use for RTFMing on the job? And how the hell are you going to use a voice-activated control? 'Look over there?'
    My favourite quote: "Its ability to ... apply ... light energy directly to the retina is substantially better than conventional technologies offered today" Looks like they've got William Shatner as spokesman.
  • What trekkie has good vision, contacts have just droped in price over the last few years
  • John Hopkins and a few other places are working on something quite a bit better. Admittedly I don't think the resolution is quite as good... but then again, you aren't carrying around a computer to see either. Just some glasses (not that thick either) and a nice little chip in your eye. you do need an optic nerve though.
  • Sounds like this device may actually work. And for thoes who don't understand the difference between this and other head mounted displays...

    This one actually shoots light into your eyes, being as you are having a hard time seeing already (ie there is not enought light bouncing off of objects already for you.) this can add an increased amount of light focused directly into your eye. You have to wonder if this is going to destroy your eyes that much faster?

    An example, a hearing aid works like a little amplifier sitting in or hanging on your ear increasing sound levels for the wearer. A stereo has similar function, but simply broadcasts sound for a room.

    Conventional displays from Blue Tooth etc, allow your eye to function as normal and view the reflected light from the display (not targeted at anything in particular.)

  • Maybe we could use this technique to become Tetrachromats??

    Sure, just sit down here... you did read the small print about the necessary sex change?

  • Microvision rocks... (Score:3)

    by toolie ( 22684 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:12AM (#594687)
    I got to use one of their original units, just red colors (now they have units that are full color). It is unbelievable that you can see an image on your eye even as you focus on the surrounding environment. They are currently trying to find uses in military aircraft (lose the HUD, which only works while looking forward).

    I was skeptical at first, but seeing it was amazing.
  • RTFA. This is not for people who have vision problems that can be fixed by standard means, this is for people whose sight is worse than that can be by hundreds of year old technology. Think about your grandmother who can't see well enough anymore to be able to get around independantly. With this tech, people like that will be able to have freedom again.
  • A retinal scanner will be the most compact portable display device when it is perfected. At ordinary power it will be the display of choice for normal vision.

  • Re:WHY (Score:3)

    by MySamoanAttorney ( 101175 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:19AM (#594690) Homepage
    My grandfather has macular degeneration, a form of "low vision". Unfortunately as it's not a problem with focussing, it's not fixed with eyeglasses. It's not fixed surgically either, since it involves the retina directly. Truth is, he had normal eyesight through his seventies and early eighties. Now he can barely read and will likely be blind in a short time. I know he can see much better in very high light situations, which makes sense since the problem is related to the retina not having enough "gain" and so needing excessive amounts of lignt. I suppose this device helps by brightening the world a lot. I bet if a normal-vision person looked through the nomad, it woudl be really bright. A ./ toy? Probably not... these things are usually old-age related and we're really young, right? ;-)
  • Wow, this really looks neat. I was born with low vision that has been corrected to "acceptable" levels, for small values of acceptable. The thing that stinks is that I can see well enough to drive and perform every routine human function, but I'm *just this side* of normal when it comes to detailed work (like computer stuff; ever see anyone with a 21" monitor at 800x600? :) You will when you come into my workplace after I've been reeading the monitor at 1024x768 for a few hours.)

    That said, I know people with much lower vision. For them, life *really* sucks. They see blurred shapes, degrees of light, things like that. This product is a definite plus for them. Even video-camera quality images are much better than what they can get from their natural equipment. For someone like me, it probably isn't really an option, but the fact that we can now restore decent vision to those worse off than I am is great.
  • Somehow I don't see my 80 year old grandmother who is legally blind jumping at this - she still has problems with my father keeping track of her check book on the computer. Given that many of the people with low vision are older and don't realy want all this technology around them I am not convinced that they would ask for something like this.
  • Uh oh, Creative already patented the "Nomad" name for their "portable PDE systems" (Personal Digital Entertainment). I sense an impending lawsuit or doctored settlement with Creative Technologies, Ltd., LLC, CRAP, etc.

  • Not quite (Score:3)

    by uradu ( 10768 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:47AM (#594694)
    > Essentially, it's the same type of display that many wearables come with

    I'm not aware of (m)any wearable computers that use retinal scan display technology, but I'm willing to be enlightenend. There's a fundamental difference between retinal scan (no picture plane other than the retina) and LCD goggles, which create an intermediary picture plane that your eye has to focus on. The potential for miniaturization is much greater in retinal scan.
  • Man...A technological advance letting the visually impaired see enough to simply navigate the real world. Maybe to see enough to go to the bathroom, or get a drink out of the fridge. Jesus, guys...Are you honestly concerned that there's an nVida chipset involved so that the blind can play Unreal Tournament? Yeesh! I remember seeing a PBS Nova episode LONG ago...Where a congenitally deaf girl was surgically fitted with an electonic aural implant. It was amazing to watch her as she heard her own voice for the first time! There was not a dry eye in the house!

  • Technology, Bionics, blah... (Score:3)

    by smack_attack ( 171144 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @03:08AM (#594696) Homepage
    How are we supposed to evolve if we are constantly fixing our broken selfs with add-on technology? I mean, if there were a magic pill that cured EVERYTHING, gave us the perfect bodies, and the only catch was that you had to take a pill every day, you can bet your ass people would be dieing left and right after they forgot to take their pills (re: Andromeda Strain).

    Technology as a crutch should only be used as a temporary fix for people who are born with these defects. It should not be something that is factory issued at birth (yes, I mean FACTORY, let's call it like it is once we begin to upgrade from conception). If we really want to create the "perfect human" (sorry, I know I won't see it in my lifetime, and since I'll never be one, my personal stance is "screw it", but hey), our focus should be on genetic therapy and propogation. Every scientist has to realize the power that comes from being able to start fresh instead of fix something that is already broken. While we're at it, why not just rewrite the humane genome as well, I know we can come up with some really interesting alterations.

    Homo Sapien 2.0

    I can't wait.

  • Who needs to look like la Forge anyway? With one of these babies, I won't even think once of buying a 42 inch monitor...might get a little disorienting though. Now for the important question: how do I make the doctor believe my eyesight is sufficiently bad to need one of these...?
  • (just wait until Bluetooth achieves ubiquity), then you're just asking for trouble.

    Eye enhancements, safe when used as directed.

Slashdot Top Deals

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner

Close