Microchip + Video Glasses = Sight for Blind?

Seriously. There are neurostimulator/microstimulator researchers around the globe working on various types of "visual prosthesis" (retinal, cortical, etc etc), and as far as I have heard, they've so far managed the wondrous achievement of making the implantee see blotches or flashes of light - the same crud you can see by pressing your finger against your closed eyelid.

I think the chances of getting any of these things to work are pretty slim. Okay so this one plans to use a camera to digitize the necessary visual information, so that can be sent directly to the brain by a machine. Since when does the brain process images in the composite video signal format?

How do you translate image data into a signal that can be interpreted by the brain? No idea? Well guess what. Unless and until it's tested on a living human subject who can tell you what they see, there's no way to find out. I guess if you're blind, you might be willing to take the risk, if there are no other options?... and of course if there's even the faintest expectation that the thing might work.... (it's not called risk-benefit analysis for nothing!)

The present prosthetic devices, afaik, all use "stimulus pulse trains" to interrupt biological signalling that's messed up. Barbaric little jackhammers on the nerves. Thag hit nerve with hammer, wake up from bad dream. It has nothing to do with the biological neural signalling system or understanding the language of nerves/cells or visual processing via neural signalling. It's just a crude clumsy electrical intervention.

Physical problems with retinal implants: the electrochemical deposition problem, if your signal to the nerve is not charge balanced. In the eye, that means a risk of buildup of stuff might block ducts and cause secondary glaucoma - that's optic nerve damage so you can kiss your hope of curing blindness goodbye if this isn't addressed. So on the jackhammer model, you design a pulse train that's charge balanced biphasic, for minimum risk. But wait a minute... are these guys really talking about offering "video" data to the brain? The camera output...do they turn that into a pulse train? Video sync pulse maybe? Oh it all makes sense.... NOT.

I simply don't believe there is a clue in hell as to how to digitize visual information in the code used by and readable to the brain. That would mean the camera is for show, giving a misleading impression that the data is actually receivable.. Nice going....

If I'm wrong about this, I'd love to hear about it. Any chance of a superior video encoding system upcoming, based on that knowledge of how it's done in the brain? Come on. Tell it out and I'll happily apologize for questioning the "camera input" ruse.

Interesting and informative. But just a little bit of information about the brain's ability to interpret signals: I have a nerve condition known as Neuromyolitis, one of its wonderful (sarcasm) side effects has been that it has destroyed the optic nerve in my left eye. Ophthalmologists who have examined my eye are at a loss: because I have some vision in that eye, enough for depth perception.

The only explanation is that the nerves that are pain transmitters and control pupil contraction have been rerouted in the brain itself. The sight is not good, about 20/300 and the gamma background (overall brightness) is poor but I can drive.

Perhaps the best experimental method would be to allow the brain to adapt to the implant.

Just my opinion, Dragon