Man's high-tech paradise lost: bionic eye removed
thewhig.com
thewhig.com
> The project ended with his death.
> “When he died, there was no medical journal on the 16 patients, with myself being the first one implanted. Nothing was ever written and documented.
What the fuck? An experimental surgical procedure is being conducted, and nothing is recorded outside on elderly doctor's brain?
PS: Escrow services and wills are something that many people don't use. It's the old if I am gone I don't really care mentality.
It's not a dystopic science fiction story, it's how slow and cumbersome and real world engineering based medical research works, and how the only way to make any meaningful progress fast enough (if you're not in one of the few well funded and well staffed places in the world, working on one of the few projects that are considered "important"), is to work around the system, cheat and look for sloppy shortcuts, ask the poor patients for money directly, and how everything crumbles when the one genius/madman that pulled all those tricks to make it work goes out of the picture.
I mean, they did manage to give him back his sight for a limited period of time, that's pretty amazing technology if you ask me, not the kind a hack would achieve, but yes, it's very unfortunate that he lost it again, that must be some terrible pain.
I agree it might not sound too professional, but it seems to me that it's more about how this article is putting it and the reality may be more complex.
The old doc was probably brave enough to do it while circumventing the whole regulatory process and using his personal reputation and charisma and professional relationships to pull it through and get the funding he needed, so again, good luck finding anyone to replace him.
The data may exist. But it's non-trivial to recreate an experiment or interpret results with only lab notebooks, especially for experiments which were not completed. Despite the best of intentions, even with well-kept notes, not everything is recorded – the doctor's not-completely-formed thoughts (e.g., on topics such as where the experiment should go next, possible issues that might arise) would be the key to moving forward and might not hvae been recorded because they weren't at an advanced enough stage to commit to writing (in the sense that not everyone immediately writes down every idea they have about something, even if that idea later becomes crucial).
What about the guys that made the hardware. This story is missing some key details.
There is a boat load of research going into MEAs these days.
> “Then, when I came back here I realized that part of why I was chasing these dreams of seeing again was because that’s the way, in this society, I can be included. Despite the fact that when I’m right here working on my property, I’m not traumatized by my vision loss because I’ve moved on. I’m able to do what I need to do. It’s just that when I’m among society, I’m told I am not really allowed to eat, because we will not give you a job, because you cannot see.”
And this. All of these are amazing.
Why was the first time non-permanent while the second time was? Did the system damage his visual system in his brain?
> Did the system damage his visual system in his brain?
I know of no working system that attaches directly to the optic nerve, and the article is very light on details. I assume these implants worked by projecting light on retina remnants. In cases where the eye is destroyed but some of the light-sensing apparatus is still intact, there is the potential for a device that sends light directly into the remaining rods and cones.
This is different from a direct electrical interface, which remains the holy grail of brain-machine interfaces.
The devices were probably Utah Microelectrode Arrays(MEAs) the MEAs were no doubt implanted on the visual cortex on the cerebral cortex to induce phospehnes.
This is no holy grail, and MEAs have provided computer-brain interfaces since the 80's.
check out my other comments in the thread for more information
Are there any similar devices that have been installed in people that have been more successful?
$100,000+ for 8 weeks of sight is very sad to think about.
What was the approximate resolution of the image that he saw?
WEAR YOUR SAFETY GLASSES!
> What was the approximate resolution of the image that he saw?
From the article it says he saw well enough to drive, so it must've been pretty good.
> WEAR YOUR SAFETY GLASSES!
"Carol never wore her safety goggles. Now she doesn't need them."
The amazing part is that the brain quickly learns to interpret the signals and can create an image.
I wonder if the brains image is a higher resolution than the camera considering it's basically processing the raw data and can apply very complex "algorithms" to the data to present an image.
I wasn't saying the price was too high, just that it's interesting to think about how lucky we are to have sight for free and that people with not very much money would spend everything just for the chance to regain a small amount of vision.
Maybe start off in the same manner as the television research. First black and white, low resolution then onwards to full sight. It shouldn't be "All or Nothing" always. Low cost procedures are really the need of the hour.
Some people do think like this indeed, but majority of people don't. Articles like this are nice reminders for this.
There are some research teams working on the lower cost method.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2195683/Bioni...
Most of the transplants are lower resolution to reduce device size (smaller computer components and battery). If you can perfect the lower resolution device then increasing the resolution and adding colors would be relatively easy.
I'm amazed that scientists can "talk" to the brain and how successful some of these procedures have been, truly fascinating times we live in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurostimulation#Visual_Prosthe...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interfac...
I was about to say that you'll never see a BCI kickstarter, but sure enough there is one: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/openbci/openbci-an-open...
It can't talk back to the brain unfortunately, but it's a step in the right direction.
http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/BTO/ was launched 5 days ago (NOT an April fools joke), usually DARPA does a pretty good job of rapidly advancing technology.
http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/04/01.aspx
http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/BTO/Programs/Reliable_Neural-I...
I guess the true holy-grail for this would be to pack in some "putty" into the eye-socket and let the eye re-grow based on your DNA, I doubt that will be available soon but a biological solution to blindness should definitely be explored as well.
Stem cell technology seems ever elusive, but still if not that, than this.
Thanks for the kickstarter and darpa link, it seems really interesting.
It might not regenerate on it's own, but that doesn't mean it can't regenerate.
http://www.childrenshospital.org/news-and-events/2012/may-20...
"A team at Boston Children’s Hospital reports a three-pronged intervention that not only got optic nerve fibers to grow the full length of the visual pathway (from retina to the visual areas of the brain), but also restored some basic elements of vision in live mice."
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/2012/07/full-length-axon-regen...
Wasn't that "Em" who doesn't need them? ;)
It sounds like there's now a commercial product for people with severely limited vision (Argus) which claims to have stable implants over multiple years in hundreds of patients. Not sure what the quality is like though, and not sure if the technology generalizes to the fully blind (who may have entirely atrophied optic nerves).
I was under the impression that titanium was one of the few materials considered to be safe for human implantation.
to have a subdermal anchor for external hardware is extremely tricky. flesh pockets around the anchor and has tons of potential for infection after prolonged use.
I , too, was confused by the wording.
If the implant has sharp edges, or rips into the surrounding tissue, or otherwise causes cells to die or prevents repair of damaged tissue somehow, the immune system will go looking for a culprit[1]. If it decides that the implant is the culprit, bad luck. It will attempt to surround the implant and expel it. Depending on the size this may or may not work (this is what happens to splinters of wood that get into your body, for example). This can even cause the immune system to decide a bone is the culprit, if it does you have rheumatoid arthritis (it's a condition that you are very likely to get if you live long enough)
Furthermore, implants may actually infect, as in a bacterial colony may develop on their surface (because the contact surface with the immune system is much smaller, an infection has a bigger chance to maintain that position. Always keep in mind that the immune system wins against bacteria not because it's better or smarter, but because it has 80kg of cells working logistics for it). The same can happen to bones.
[1] To be exact, cells have an "alarm" signal molecule floating inside them. If the cell is ordered to commit suicide (apoptosis), it will put out an enzyme that neutralizes this alarm molecule before ripping itself to shreds, the same will happen if the immune system orders a cell to eat itself (autophagy). But if the cell dies for some other reason (e.g. getting ripped to shreds, explosion due to infection, ...) the alarm signal will be spread into the surrounding tissue where the immune system can find it. When it finds it, it will come in force to check out the situation. If it keeps seeing this signal without finding a cause, the immune system will go insane/react badly.
Artificial openings in the body are very difficult to keep from getting infected.
http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/10.09/images/FF.Sight...
I'm sure there are research teams looking into the wireless methods, in 2002 it just wasn't possible yet. Magnetic induction has it's own challenges, especially when being used with a device inside living tissue.
Wireless power for medical devices has only been practical for the past couple years, and even now the technology is in it's infancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer#Timeli...
People forget that magnetic induction can also be used for data and power transfer simultaneously, I believe they use this approach with some cochlear implants.
Could you provide some evidence for this?
Also, isn't magnetic induction basically RF?
Yes RF is non-ionizing, but research linking it to cancer is generally inconclusive. So I concede I was too bold saying RF causes cancer, but right now we just don't know.
It would probably be possible to power it with RF power harvesting and multiplex the MEA with a MSP430. Now that would be a fun research project.
Very cool. I had a splinter sink into my finger once, and abandoned the project of getting it out. Sure enough, it eventually emerged on its own; in my memory it was coated with a thin layer of some clear substance.
> Always keep in mind that the immune system wins against bacteria not because it's better or smarter, but because it has 80kg of cells working logistics for it
I weigh less than 80 kilograms. What's that g stand for?
Are you sure about this? A friend hit me with a pencil 5 years ago, and this caused some graphite to enter inside my skin. The graphite is still there to date and I got no pain, infection, reaction from it.
Because the majority of titanium implants are two-piece (a screw and an abutment), bacteria can enter through micro-gaps between the components, and thrive within the actual implant. This often leads to peri-implantitis.
Single-piece implants don't have this problem (but usually have many others).
Disclaimer: I'm working with a 'maverick' doctor who invented a (revolutionary) non-surgical dental implant.
Having a chronic wound from the protruding titanium electrode however would increase the risk of infection, but the material is independent of the infection.
It will certainly be an interesting future, and I hope it is one where information becomes even more free.
Ideally the BMI would be as protected as the brain in a 5th amendment sense, but it's a very quick and tempting slippery slope...
Basically the successors of this technology should already be on the market now! They aren't simply because nobody found a way to make a huge profits and medical doctors are too technophobes and/or drowning in other problems that need their immediate attention to afford take risk* and make the effort of begging the government to fund this.
Another comment says that the device resolution was 32x32 (this article says that they see “dots”), it’s much better than a 0x0 resolution, but it’s the resolution of an icon. If you have ever drawn an icon, you’d know that 32x32 is not too much.
There are similar device for audition, but the wires don’t go directly to the brain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant
Let’s hope that this camera device or a similar device gets fixed until it’s useful in the long term. But it’s important to remember that there are a lot of technical details that need to get fixed, and a lot of clinical test to prove that it’s not a scam, snake oil, an optimistic misrepresentation or any combination of them.
But when it was first tested, it was what seemed to work best, but was abandoned because of the place it was developed in and the (lack of) scientific reputation of the person working on it. The thing with these kinds of things is that you need "proof by engineering and experiment", so if you don't throw money at them before knowing how well they work, you'll never know if they work at all... or you'll never have more than one working technology to choose from. The whole "fund just the best ideas" approach in medical engineering is disastrous imho because the problem space is so huge that you never know what might turn out to work and for what, and at the same time, you obviously can't just do "garage/basement experiments" on these kinds of things, so any equivalent of "wacky garage experiments" actually needs to be funded... this technology was a nice "exploration" of one way to solve a problem.
Citation please? That certainly wasn't the case last time I was reading this corner of the research literature (6ish years ago).
You's basically have a smaller-smartphone sized computer implanted somewhere under the skin (above the pectoral? somewhere else? dunno - just make a larger version of the casing used for peacemakers), with a wirelessly rechargeable battery (existing tech - just google), a subcutaneous bunch of wires going to the implanted electrode (again, tech similar to what you have in current pacemakers), and this will be wirelessly linked to the camera (existing tech - just need to find something low power on the receiving end). If you need more computing power in the loop, you'd have another smartphone sized device in the patients pocket, getting the wireless feed from the camera, processing it and streaming to the subcutaneous one. But wait, you already have things like the Google Glass that have a camera + enough computing power and wireless capabilities baked in, and ready to be mass produced, thanks Google.
Going further, when the electronics get low power enough, the wirelessly charging implantable battery (a bit large, and deadly if it ever leaks, but thankfully not hard to safely case/coat) could be replaced with a glucose fuel cell (not yet available, so stick to the battery for now, but doable in the future according to: http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130322/srep01516/full/srep01...).
Now yes, none of these are "medical grade" or "medically approved" techs or anything, there is real work in putting them together, and the whole biocompat coating is again existing tech, you just need the expertise of an existing implantable devices manufacturer, but it's "just" a matter of glueing together some existing parts. Take a team of good hw engineers from any telcom company and they'd know how to do it.
...but to be honest, the real solution for blindness caused by retinal damage is probably something like this: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1711/1489... , and since this is probably the best path, it doesn't matter that much this old doc's researches got to an end...