Blind and Visually Impaired Community
↑
3
↓
2018 Visual restoration - Overview of current generation solutions (self.Blind)
submitted by [deleted]
[deleted]
quanin 2 points 4y ago
What is with people's obsession with fixing the broken? Better, what is with people seeing it as broken in the first place?
FitAirline1 1 points 4y ago
A broken thing is a broken thing, you don't need to accept treatment and in the future you do not need to accept things which will re-enable your visual perception.
quanin 2 points 4y ago
But then there's the small matter of who says I'm broken?
FitAirline1 1 points 4y ago
This is not about emotion.
The way you're broken as a person has less to do with your physical condition and more to do with your spiritual condition from my point of view.
You're just ridiculously callous and in my point of view probably are not too encumbered by your disability yet and may even be collecting disability and have perhaps even begun to draw on the power of what most people without a seriously serious disability consider a privileged class.
I have no nearly no central vision and have to use algorithms to relay data which allows my brain to create an abstraction to supplement my damaged eyes.
That's BROKEN.
Edit: For people wondering how this is possible considering the eyes are moving, a tone that is generated in the center of spatial awareness having a high structural fidelity upon travel in both directions (after refraction off objects) may allow a person to derive a sense of primitive spatial awareness parameters from it's return.
This tone is then interpreted by a 3rd party and visual stimuli is filtered using it as a context map, producing the visual stimuli you would expect to see in vOICe as the way the patterns are relayed is consistent and this is more important than the content in regard to the tone that occurs.
This may further be enhanced with color-coding and the association between color and tone may be created in individuals with any degree of prior color perception in theory? Everyone is different.
Right now we're really exploring what we can get away with in regard to inducing hallucinations that correspond to reality, personally I am most interested in synthesizing sound from haptic feedback,
I would prefer to talk about things like this, not to debate morality with someone who doesn't care about or understand my work in a zero sum game.
Do you even understand how dangerous it is to do this kind of work?
It is actually disruptive to people trying to make money and as our method of rendering improves so does visual acuity.
Don't be naive, if I had any degree of common sense I would walk away from this work entirely and wait for retinal implants and regeneration technology to advance and keep the fact that this is possible to myself.
The thing is though, not every person in the world shares your opinion and not every person in the world has money and opportunity, not every person has insurance and disability.
These people are effectively living in hell, what about them?
Retinal implants and regeneration therapy are the ideal, but this is the feasible option for the majority of people in the world that are blind.
An upgrade in acuity for them could be as simple as an expansion of the algorithms used to render visual stimuli, and that would be as simple as a software upgrade.
There are blind people in 3rd world countries that do not have any kind of social benefits, they would rather be able to perceive the world around them to help their families and to live.
This is about life, and death.
That's what this means to the majority of people, in developed countries this is the exception to a savage rule of life.
It's not about life and death for you, and I am glad for you existentially but you should never lose touch with the fact that for some people it is, and something needs to be done for them too.
They do not mean less because of where they come from, we should not be living in Elysium.
​
The majority of people need this, it is not about some fucking spiritual bullshit regarding acceptance.
​
It's about a person who may starve because the one person they depended on died.
​
It's about someone who has been taken care of, and now must become a caretaker.
​
This whole interaction has made me feel incredibly sick, I think you're a terrible person.
The way you're broken as a person has less to do with your physical condition and more to do with your spiritual condition from my point of view.
You're just ridiculously callous and in my point of view probably are not too encumbered by your disability yet and may even be collecting disability and have perhaps even begun to draw on the power of what most people without a seriously serious disability consider a privileged class.
I have no nearly no central vision and have to use algorithms to relay data which allows my brain to create an abstraction to supplement my damaged eyes.
That's BROKEN.
Edit: For people wondering how this is possible considering the eyes are moving, a tone that is generated in the center of spatial awareness having a high structural fidelity upon travel in both directions (after refraction off objects) may allow a person to derive a sense of primitive spatial awareness parameters from it's return.
This tone is then interpreted by a 3rd party and visual stimuli is filtered using it as a context map, producing the visual stimuli you would expect to see in vOICe as the way the patterns are relayed is consistent and this is more important than the content in regard to the tone that occurs.
This may further be enhanced with color-coding and the association between color and tone may be created in individuals with any degree of prior color perception in theory? Everyone is different.
Right now we're really exploring what we can get away with in regard to inducing hallucinations that correspond to reality, personally I am most interested in synthesizing sound from haptic feedback,
I would prefer to talk about things like this, not to debate morality with someone who doesn't care about or understand my work in a zero sum game.
Do you even understand how dangerous it is to do this kind of work?
It is actually disruptive to people trying to make money and as our method of rendering improves so does visual acuity.
Don't be naive, if I had any degree of common sense I would walk away from this work entirely and wait for retinal implants and regeneration technology to advance and keep the fact that this is possible to myself.
The thing is though, not every person in the world shares your opinion and not every person in the world has money and opportunity, not every person has insurance and disability.
These people are effectively living in hell, what about them?
Retinal implants and regeneration therapy are the ideal, but this is the feasible option for the majority of people in the world that are blind.
An upgrade in acuity for them could be as simple as an expansion of the algorithms used to render visual stimuli, and that would be as simple as a software upgrade.
There are blind people in 3rd world countries that do not have any kind of social benefits, they would rather be able to perceive the world around them to help their families and to live.
This is about life, and death.
That's what this means to the majority of people, in developed countries this is the exception to a savage rule of life.
It's not about life and death for you, and I am glad for you existentially but you should never lose touch with the fact that for some people it is, and something needs to be done for them too.
They do not mean less because of where they come from, we should not be living in Elysium.
​
The majority of people need this, it is not about some fucking spiritual bullshit regarding acceptance.
​
It's about a person who may starve because the one person they depended on died.
​
It's about someone who has been taken care of, and now must become a caretaker.
​
This whole interaction has made me feel incredibly sick, I think you're a terrible person.
quanin 1 points 4y ago
... wow. In two comments and one edit you've gone from relatively civil to... I don't even know what the hell that above is. I think we're done here.
FitAirline1 1 points 4y ago
I'm honestly not sure why you're engaging with me in this way.
​
There's a certain kind of intellectual dishonesty in your approach here.
​
There's a certain kind of intellectual dishonesty in your approach here.
quanin 2 points 4y ago
Not at all. Seeing people with disabilities--any disability--as something to be fixed is exactly what we've been doing for decades. Why accommodate people with disabilities when we can just fix them? If people put half as much effort into making things usable by people with low or no vision as they do in trying to fix people who very likely have never had vision and wouldn't know what to do with it if you could give it to them tomorrow, it wouldn't matter if we don't see the technology to "restore" normal vision for another 10 years.
Yes, I put restore in quotes for a reason. To restore something implies that it's somehow been taken away from you. But to have something taken away from you, you'd have to have had it in the first place. In those cases, like for example someone losing their sight later in life, perhaps this will possibly be viable. But for everyone else, this causes more problems than it solves, IMO.
Yes, I put restore in quotes for a reason. To restore something implies that it's somehow been taken away from you. But to have something taken away from you, you'd have to have had it in the first place. In those cases, like for example someone losing their sight later in life, perhaps this will possibly be viable. But for everyone else, this causes more problems than it solves, IMO.
-shacklebolt- 2 points 4y ago
I'm curious as to why this is the very first post you've made from this account, and why there are links provided regarding the software and users, but not regarding the implant or users?
It reads a little like an advertisement.
It reads a little like an advertisement.
FitAirline1 1 points 4y ago
>It reads a little like an advertisement.
​
Why would I suggest someone junk an eye with prototype technology?
​
Even if the eye is useless it may still be salvaged as an interface, but to do this repeatedly is a no-go for a lot of reasons it should be something that happens just ONE time.
​
So yes, you're right I do have a clearly defined preference because doing it this way with an algorithm is equivalent to using a 2000-5000 electrode implant.
​
Why would I suggest someone use a 240 electrode implant that will junk an eye and then make them ineligible for the massive upgrades we will see within the next 10 years as well as the complications that may come with needing regenerative procedures as we still can't make an optic nerve and if that's damaged then all retinal implants are for the people who are afflicted by this condition, for nothing.
​
Not all electrodes may connect and the surface area may change over time too, so you will ALWAYS end up with a much lower number of electrodes than the device actually has.
​
Bionics cannot advance until restorative technology does in some sense.
​
An advert would be if I linked to Argus 2 and then how to find a place to have it installed, you're aware it costs $150,000 right?
​
This low-resolution piece of shit.
​
Would it be bias if I only linked to Argus 2 or would it just be the only thing I could talk about since it's the ONLY option in the US presently as far as retinal implants go.
​
Encoding visual data and relaying it through another sense absolutely destroys Argus 2 in every sense, it is not even a fucking competition and this is still in it's infancy, with refinement we will be able to induce HD hallucinations that perfectly correspond to the encoded image but this will take a lot longer if people aren't aware this is being done!
​
If you understand how more people being involved leads to more data in general and greater refinement my motives in posting this are easy to understand, that's what I seek to gain.
​
What I ultimately want is to uh, help restore the perception of sight in other human beings which has already been done through the protocol I have described, I am working to implement it in the form of haptic feedback for people who are also deaf but this topic is really not about me or what I am personally doing.
​
Why would I suggest someone junk an eye with prototype technology?
​
Even if the eye is useless it may still be salvaged as an interface, but to do this repeatedly is a no-go for a lot of reasons it should be something that happens just ONE time.
​
So yes, you're right I do have a clearly defined preference because doing it this way with an algorithm is equivalent to using a 2000-5000 electrode implant.
​
Why would I suggest someone use a 240 electrode implant that will junk an eye and then make them ineligible for the massive upgrades we will see within the next 10 years as well as the complications that may come with needing regenerative procedures as we still can't make an optic nerve and if that's damaged then all retinal implants are for the people who are afflicted by this condition, for nothing.
​
Not all electrodes may connect and the surface area may change over time too, so you will ALWAYS end up with a much lower number of electrodes than the device actually has.
​
Bionics cannot advance until restorative technology does in some sense.
​
An advert would be if I linked to Argus 2 and then how to find a place to have it installed, you're aware it costs $150,000 right?
​
This low-resolution piece of shit.
​
Would it be bias if I only linked to Argus 2 or would it just be the only thing I could talk about since it's the ONLY option in the US presently as far as retinal implants go.
​
Encoding visual data and relaying it through another sense absolutely destroys Argus 2 in every sense, it is not even a fucking competition and this is still in it's infancy, with refinement we will be able to induce HD hallucinations that perfectly correspond to the encoded image but this will take a lot longer if people aren't aware this is being done!
​
If you understand how more people being involved leads to more data in general and greater refinement my motives in posting this are easy to understand, that's what I seek to gain.
​
What I ultimately want is to uh, help restore the perception of sight in other human beings which has already been done through the protocol I have described, I am working to implement it in the form of haptic feedback for people who are also deaf but this topic is really not about me or what I am personally doing.
-shacklebolt- 1 points 4y ago
I’m going ahead and approving this post. It got caught in the spam filter due to your account being brand new. We wanted to verify you are a person wanting to discuss this.
FitAirline1 1 points 4y ago
I know that everything is always 10 years away, in regard to any breakthrough and this is the most frustrating thing to ever hear.
​
This frustration in slow advancement is compounded by artificial stoppers such as law and legislature, corruption and other factors which have caused 1 year worth of advancement in any field to quite literally take 10 years to be realized, we can understand this the most clearly when looking at the iBionic Diamond Eye, created in 2014 and likely to finally be released in 2025.
​
This is also tech built to be scalable', meaning the Bionic Eye covered by insurance may be the low resolution 240 electrode model where the higher end will have realized it's potential as a 1024 electrode device.
​
This is a brave new world where your level of perception is going to depend on your income, I recognize no person wants to hear this but that is what it means when something 'Is built to be scalable to 1024 electrodes'
​
The 240 electrodes on the iBionic is a huge huge upgrade from the 60 which were used by Argus 2.
​
We will see a similar leap forward every few years, where a company will release something that seems hugely ahead of it's time but is actually right where it should be, due to the way data-info tech fields tend to double each year.
​
The Bionic eyes in pre-clinical trials now are already outdated, it is not going to be a situation where we slowly progress to better models.
​
What's going to happen is that in 2025, Bionic eyes that are able to resolve at a much higher resolution that humanly possible are going to reach the market and immediately render the Diamond Eye outdated on arrival.
​
At that point it's going to be another 5 years until the average/fortunate person can get true acuity bionics.
​
iBionics will be able to take advantage of this 5 year grace period to establish themselves as a proper next-generation bionics company.
​
iBionics is the ONLY player worth mentioning in this time.
​
Orion 1 is a very scary prospect as it's still using the same technology Argus 2 uses (old) but with an extremely invasive procedure attached to it.
​
We really don't know why the brain is able to convert ordered sound into visually represented data and don't know a lot about the conditions behind it.
​
Similarly, the Orion 1 is also kind of unknown in that it's not certain whether the components will degrade or break, what that may mean, what a blow to the head with this implant places may mean.
​
More or less electrical stimuli is applied to it, what happens is observed and then noted.
​
We are really not acting on an understanding of the brain we are actually being taught by it... If we did have a strong understanding as a species we would already have the regenerative therapy to address most eye and neurological conditions in general as they are one in the same.
​
Only one human being has an Orion, i am unsure if it's been activated.
​
I didn't post about the Argus 2 because the resolution is low and it is more targeted toward the elderly, only a certain type of person gets a 240 electrode implant: a person who does not have long left and is not concerned with improving their vision beyond seeing some undefined shadows and light.
​
My opinion is that people on Reddit are generally young and I do not want to give people a sense of false hope in thinking these implants are viable for them, I do not want to be callous and suggest something that will leave a younger person ineligible for better hardware that is less than a decade away from them effectively stealing their future as the damage that occurs during placement may require regenerative therapy further in the future.
​
The more damaged an organ is, the harder it will be to regenerate and in the case of the Eye we want it as close to undamaged as possible, if regions of the retina have died but are relatively undamaged regenerating it with basic regenerative therapy will be possible earlier than healing something that has been deeply sliced for example.
​
The future is regenerative therapy and bionics undoubtedly, but that future may arrive at different times depending on the persons situation.
​
I wrote this post because I seen someone write about how their little brother is bored all the time.
​
Introducing a younger person to this may inspire them to refine it, a person with loved ones who is talented may be unaware this is possible and similarly may be inspired to help.
​
This frustration in slow advancement is compounded by artificial stoppers such as law and legislature, corruption and other factors which have caused 1 year worth of advancement in any field to quite literally take 10 years to be realized, we can understand this the most clearly when looking at the iBionic Diamond Eye, created in 2014 and likely to finally be released in 2025.
​
This is also tech built to be scalable', meaning the Bionic Eye covered by insurance may be the low resolution 240 electrode model where the higher end will have realized it's potential as a 1024 electrode device.
​
This is a brave new world where your level of perception is going to depend on your income, I recognize no person wants to hear this but that is what it means when something 'Is built to be scalable to 1024 electrodes'
​
The 240 electrodes on the iBionic is a huge huge upgrade from the 60 which were used by Argus 2.
​
We will see a similar leap forward every few years, where a company will release something that seems hugely ahead of it's time but is actually right where it should be, due to the way data-info tech fields tend to double each year.
​
The Bionic eyes in pre-clinical trials now are already outdated, it is not going to be a situation where we slowly progress to better models.
​
What's going to happen is that in 2025, Bionic eyes that are able to resolve at a much higher resolution that humanly possible are going to reach the market and immediately render the Diamond Eye outdated on arrival.
​
At that point it's going to be another 5 years until the average/fortunate person can get true acuity bionics.
​
iBionics will be able to take advantage of this 5 year grace period to establish themselves as a proper next-generation bionics company.
​
iBionics is the ONLY player worth mentioning in this time.
​
Orion 1 is a very scary prospect as it's still using the same technology Argus 2 uses (old) but with an extremely invasive procedure attached to it.
​
We really don't know why the brain is able to convert ordered sound into visually represented data and don't know a lot about the conditions behind it.
​
Similarly, the Orion 1 is also kind of unknown in that it's not certain whether the components will degrade or break, what that may mean, what a blow to the head with this implant places may mean.
​
More or less electrical stimuli is applied to it, what happens is observed and then noted.
​
We are really not acting on an understanding of the brain we are actually being taught by it... If we did have a strong understanding as a species we would already have the regenerative therapy to address most eye and neurological conditions in general as they are one in the same.
​
Only one human being has an Orion, i am unsure if it's been activated.
​
I didn't post about the Argus 2 because the resolution is low and it is more targeted toward the elderly, only a certain type of person gets a 240 electrode implant: a person who does not have long left and is not concerned with improving their vision beyond seeing some undefined shadows and light.
​
My opinion is that people on Reddit are generally young and I do not want to give people a sense of false hope in thinking these implants are viable for them, I do not want to be callous and suggest something that will leave a younger person ineligible for better hardware that is less than a decade away from them effectively stealing their future as the damage that occurs during placement may require regenerative therapy further in the future.
​
The more damaged an organ is, the harder it will be to regenerate and in the case of the Eye we want it as close to undamaged as possible, if regions of the retina have died but are relatively undamaged regenerating it with basic regenerative therapy will be possible earlier than healing something that has been deeply sliced for example.
​
The future is regenerative therapy and bionics undoubtedly, but that future may arrive at different times depending on the persons situation.
​
I wrote this post because I seen someone write about how their little brother is bored all the time.
​
Introducing a younger person to this may inspire them to refine it, a person with loved ones who is talented may be unaware this is possible and similarly may be inspired to help.
FitAirline1 1 points 4y ago
I have considered retinal implants for myself but decided not to go that route in this time, as the resolution isn't high enough to warrant potentially being ineligible for more refined models or advances that could heal my retina which may occur in the next decade.
​
I think it's a very big decision to alpha-test the first generation of cranial or retinal implants, we do not know the long-term effects of sending currents into the body.
​
We do know that any technology derived from data-information experiences an exponential increase though.
​
$1
​
The Diamond Eye implant is the only thing worth linking to, Argus 2 has been put on the backburner for Orion 1 as other companies are just making better retinal implants.
​
Orion 1 is just unconscionably dangerous in my point of view, I do not think it is a very good idea to explore this option as this does facilitate the creation and spread of prions which lead to degenerative diseases later in life.
​
We do not even know that it is important for the interfaces in question to be on the retina, the brain may decode what it decodes regardless of where it is placed. We need more research to know whether this is the case.
​
We can understand a few important things about this timeline, that indeed the electrode count does roughly double every year but that this doubling does not occur every year it occurs roughly every 10.
​
Also, while Diamond Eye can be scaled to 1000 electrodes, this doesn't imply an advancement in technology it implies people with more money will get a higher resolution implant, or also that size may be maximized depending on retinal function.
​
The higher 1000 electrode tier.. may not even be covered by standard insurance.
​
Anyway, let's look onward to the future.
​
$1
​
$1
​
There are not really many clinical trials happening on this front.
​
Assuming the Retina is usable, it's very likely the iBionics Diamond will be the first to restore truly usable sight in people.
​
The next generation of implants after iBionics will be a very big leap forward and will be the generation that restores visuality acuity completely with the caveats that the eye be usable and the optic nerve be undamaged.
​
Where does this leave people who have experiences Trauma to the eye or optic nerve?
​
This is another subject entirely and depends on how good our regenerative technology becomes.
​
Fortunately a lot of advances have been made on this front as well:
​
$1.
​
$1
​
​
I think it's a very big decision to alpha-test the first generation of cranial or retinal implants, we do not know the long-term effects of sending currents into the body.
​
We do know that any technology derived from data-information experiences an exponential increase though.
​
$1
​
The Diamond Eye implant is the only thing worth linking to, Argus 2 has been put on the backburner for Orion 1 as other companies are just making better retinal implants.
​
Orion 1 is just unconscionably dangerous in my point of view, I do not think it is a very good idea to explore this option as this does facilitate the creation and spread of prions which lead to degenerative diseases later in life.
​
We do not even know that it is important for the interfaces in question to be on the retina, the brain may decode what it decodes regardless of where it is placed. We need more research to know whether this is the case.
​
We can understand a few important things about this timeline, that indeed the electrode count does roughly double every year but that this doubling does not occur every year it occurs roughly every 10.
​
Also, while Diamond Eye can be scaled to 1000 electrodes, this doesn't imply an advancement in technology it implies people with more money will get a higher resolution implant, or also that size may be maximized depending on retinal function.
​
The higher 1000 electrode tier.. may not even be covered by standard insurance.
​
Anyway, let's look onward to the future.
​
$1
​
$1
​
There are not really many clinical trials happening on this front.
​
Assuming the Retina is usable, it's very likely the iBionics Diamond will be the first to restore truly usable sight in people.
​
The next generation of implants after iBionics will be a very big leap forward and will be the generation that restores visuality acuity completely with the caveats that the eye be usable and the optic nerve be undamaged.
​
Where does this leave people who have experiences Trauma to the eye or optic nerve?
​
This is another subject entirely and depends on how good our regenerative technology becomes.
​
Fortunately a lot of advances have been made on this front as well:
​
$1.
​
$1
​
fastfinge 1 points 4y ago
The software is actually entirely free. I'm curious what OP thinks to gain by advertising free software like this with an alt account.
FitAirline1 2 points 4y ago
What do I think to gain?
​
What I want is for more people to understand this is possible, to attract people who may have the talent to create refinements to it and also to let people know there is actually other work being done in other directions should they have severed or damaged optic nerves.
​
For people to know that the prototype for this kind of technology exists right now and not in the future.
​
If we can determine better or more improved ways to encode visual information we can increase the visual resolution that this kind of technology can deliver to people.
​
As of right now, the resolution is very low but still usable in some way.
​
An example of an improvement would be to determine tonal frequencies that are inaudible but will still be perceived by the brain, and how finely the brain can discriminate between frequencies barring pattern interference by other sounds.
​
Can the brain use a frequency of 200.0-200.X to relay information or is the degree of difference too fine the brain to parse?
​
If we can determine this, we can ride the finest line, and reduce this interface to something barely worn.
​
If consciously hearing it isn't required as we expect, then it should be possible to transmit data at a much greater speed, determining the transmission speed as well as whether a conscious or subconscious implementation is most beneficial is also valuable data.
​
Things like this need to be explored so this can be streamlined, we have also understood humans can derive spatial awareness from the return of a fixed sound emanated at what we can call the center of perception.
​
If some people read this, they will consider verifying whether this is a lie or a reality and will be surprised to find it is indeed a reality although it sounds impossible.
​
I do not work on this project and am not the creator, I don't even know this person although they are great.
​
The project I am working on is similar, but using haptic feedback to encode audio and visual data for people who cannot see or hear.
​
What I want is for more people to understand this is possible, to attract people who may have the talent to create refinements to it and also to let people know there is actually other work being done in other directions should they have severed or damaged optic nerves.
​
For people to know that the prototype for this kind of technology exists right now and not in the future.
​
If we can determine better or more improved ways to encode visual information we can increase the visual resolution that this kind of technology can deliver to people.
​
As of right now, the resolution is very low but still usable in some way.
​
An example of an improvement would be to determine tonal frequencies that are inaudible but will still be perceived by the brain, and how finely the brain can discriminate between frequencies barring pattern interference by other sounds.
​
Can the brain use a frequency of 200.0-200.X to relay information or is the degree of difference too fine the brain to parse?
​
If we can determine this, we can ride the finest line, and reduce this interface to something barely worn.
​
If consciously hearing it isn't required as we expect, then it should be possible to transmit data at a much greater speed, determining the transmission speed as well as whether a conscious or subconscious implementation is most beneficial is also valuable data.
​
Things like this need to be explored so this can be streamlined, we have also understood humans can derive spatial awareness from the return of a fixed sound emanated at what we can call the center of perception.
​
If some people read this, they will consider verifying whether this is a lie or a reality and will be surprised to find it is indeed a reality although it sounds impossible.
​
I do not work on this project and am not the creator, I don't even know this person although they are great.
​
The project I am working on is similar, but using haptic feedback to encode audio and visual data for people who cannot see or hear.
impablomations 1 points 4y ago
Agreed, this looks very fishy.
FitAirline1 1 points 4y ago
That says more about the state of this world and the average person than my intentions.
​
The only thing I want to do with my life is to help other people.
​
The only thing I want to do with my life is to help other people.
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc • HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.