Laser HUD Projected on Retina 325
Ligur writes: "The scoop is at the Seattle P-I: 'This fall, Bothell-based Microvision Inc. plans to give people the same cybernetic experience that once existed only in a screenwriter's imagination.
Through a device called Nomad, people will be able to read information from a small, wearable computer that projects an image over their normal vision.'" Looks like they've come a long way in the past three years.
Re:whoa! just hope that laser isn't hacked (Score:1, Interesting)
Why does this idiotic comment come up EVERY DAMN TIME a story about this is posted?
Get a clue: They're not using a 1 watt laser. Do you worry about shining a flashlight into your eyes because someone might have "hacked the battery" so it puts out the power of a searchlight?
Sheesh.
It's Not Done Yet (Score:2, Interesting)
I would think this a bit optimistic if it weren't for how rapidly they have gotten this far.
All the posts about shortcomings miss the point. They know about those shortcoming but they may have many of them fixed in a much shorter timespan than anyone would have imagined even a few years ago.
The potential is astounding.
.
Re:Transparent? Not really (Score:2, Interesting)
Retinal damage (Score:3, Interesting)
There's lots of stuff that folks are doing to their eyes these days that has no long term data on. For example, Viagra (yes, that Viagra) works because it is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor. We need phosphodiesterase for normal pigment turnover in the photoreceptors of the eyes and lots of evidence indicates photoreceptor loss in various models of phosphodiesterase genetic knock outs. Additionally, if you inhibit the phosphodiesterase of photoreceptors even short term, it leads to the build up of cyclic-GMP which results in increased Na+ permeability and continued deploarization of the photoreceptor membrane potential. The end result is that the photoreceptor no longer responds to light.
I wonder if folks are trading impotency for blindness. By projecting lasers on retinas are we trading more information for blindness?
On the other hand, projecting laser images onto the retina could certainly benefit those that suffer from various forms of vision loss. Perhaps by mapping out where folks have lost vision in their retinas, it may be possible to project the outside world onto the working portions of retina or magnify certain things onto retinas as well.
Transparent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I live in a very industrial town... (Score:2, Interesting)
I have had 4 eye surgeries, and don't want to mess anything up more than it already is.
Extreme caution and care should definitely be taken in producing/maintaining these things. You don't want to lose your vision..
combine this with a fast cpu and a camera (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't like the color or your car - write a mod so you see it as you like.
Change fonts on signs/books/etc... as you wish with OCR.
Help for the blind (Score:3, Interesting)
Attach this device to a head-mounted camera (even a cheap web-cam would work) and you could pretty much restore vision, much like hearing aids work. I would love to see these things helping the average person, as well as professionals who need the extra edge (doctors, astronauts, etc).
Re:Retinal damage (Score:5, Interesting)
--Whoa! Hope this won't fry my eyes!
--Hope someone doesn't "hack" this thing..;
and so forth. Just because something is a laser doesn't mean it will shoot evil death rays into our eyes! Again, it's the crowd of "Boy! I can hack Perl/C/C++, that MUST mean I'm smart about non-computer science topics too!" that ruins any discussion here, by flooding the postings with crap - even the JOKE posts are repeated! Literally, EVERY retinal projection story here gets the same 100+ retinal barbecuing comments!
Informed comments like yours give me some small measure of hope that there can be an interesting discussion about the development and effects of this research, but I'm too much of a pessimist to really believe that.
With regards to the topic at hand - I don't see this as being great for EVERYONE - ie an elderly person with bad vision and sensitive retinas probably wouldn't want to wear this for a long time, but I see little long-term damage for normal eyes. I for one would love to try this out in a second! More tests should be done, and knowing the people that do this kind of reseach, before any real approval or public use of this tech, such studies will have to be done.
Sincerely,
Kevin Christie
Neuroscience Program
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
crispiewm@hotmail.com
Hiro Protagonist (Score:3, Interesting)
Macrovision also has a full color model... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Retinal damage (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably it's best to use multi-colored lasers which project a color which contrasts a lot with the "original" color so you won't need a lot of light to see it.
DISCLAIMER: I'm a total moron regarding this sort of stuff.
But imagine the possibilities of this stuff combined with face-recognition, barcode-scanners, reading stuff (you can see the sums of rows...even search paper documents for words). Hell. Just look at your bluetooth-controlled fan, shout IT'S FUCKING HOT IN HERE and it'll go to max. Look at someone's face which is in your db and see all the memos you've made about this person. Look at your clock on the wall to see a list of meetings. Look at your girlfriend...eh nevermind:> Damn. Can't wait.
Studies? (Score:5, Interesting)
We all know that when you release DNA modified foods (IE Monsanto et al) you only have to show that no one can prove it causes catestrophic damage. (I know, I'm simplifiying it alot, but that's the general standing.) Since there aren't any really well funded opponents to the technology, then it pretty much sails through. The general rule seems to be...If it's for business, we don't want to hold this up, cause it might cost someone a lot of money. If it might harm someone - well, the market will fix things...
Which brings me to another issue - why do the "market driven" proponents hate the tort/legal system so much? When the system works right, the "market" determines what works by trial and error! So, if you're one of the unfortunate few to pick the wrong one, you're injured (loss of funds, health etc.) and others learn from your unfortunate mistake. It's the ones injured by the "market" process that need the legal system the most, and also the ones that deserve it the most too! So, if you love the market, then you really should love the legal system too. It's the only way a true market can be fair - or do you not care that those who you "learned" from are uncompensated Guinea Pigs?
Back to the issue at hand - what serious tests are the FDA going to require for something like this? How long will the test run? I'd hate to use a product like this, and find out in ten years that my right eye was irreparably damaged, and in my later years of life I'd loose vision from that eye! I'd bet that the requirements for testing and use are quite a bit less than we'd all assume. Lastly, I'd bet that any company that releases such a device will put the manufacturer and the seller in a shell corp, to limit the liability losses. They won't hold many assets, and will pass revenue and such to the parent. 15 years from now, provided there is some problem, good luck suing the company - they just paid out huge bonuses to the execs and went out of business.
If you think the above is poppy-cock, go do some research about the IUD Dalcon Shield. The manufacturer (who was really regulated by the FDA) got a horrible product into the market, and didn't care when it irreparably damaged many many women - many couldn't have children after their problems!
The idea's cool and all, but the real killers are in the details. How much testing is done. Who peer reviews it. How often must they report problems to the FDA, and what problems do they have to report? These and many other details will significantly impact the safety of the device. Finally, what legal liability the company might risk, will also impact how informal they are with the testing and implimentation.
I wouldn't be using the product myself for any period of time, until I understood the impacts of the following, and knew where the company stood.
Cheers!
Re:Retinal damage (Score:3, Interesting)
Vertigo (Score:5, Interesting)
Try this experiment.
1) With both eyes open tilt your head to the left (so that your ear is almost on your shoulder)
2) Ask yourself this question (silently): "Which way is up?"
3) Slowly tilt your head to the right all the while pondering about which way is up.
This is of course a function of the inner ear and gravity working properly.
Now imagine a moving picture screen with lines of text projected over your normal view of the world. I'm going to assume here that they do not change the orientation of the text to always be "up" relative to gravity but to be "up" relative to the device that is projecting it. Would this not cause vertigo in some people?
I know that some people get motion sick due to vertigo caused by reading a book (or a laptop) while traveling in a car or a plane. Could this cause the same kind of issues? Could it cause them while walking?
Re:Retinal damage (Score:2, Interesting)
Wasn't the previous poster that talked about "burn in" possibly more correct than people are giving him credit for? It seems to me that users would find it desirable to have an image remain fixed within their field of vision; and consequently some receptors will be relatively continuously stimulated at a given frequency and amplitude over a long period of time, while others (nearby) will not. From what little I know about neurology, I'd expect some aberrant behavior -- of the receptors themselves and stuff further down the line -- to result.
Wouldn't this type of fixed, constant and long-term stimulation of discrete areas be unprecedented biologically?