3 ms·
Hope for even better: "Fixed in a pair of glasses, the lenses would not move as the eye looked in different directions, so the focusing effect would be lost in
by blahedo 16y ago
Hope for even better:
"Fixed in a pair of glasses, the lenses would not move as the eye looked in different directions, so the focusing effect would be lost in the regions between the circles. But Zalevsky says that the eye learns to fill in the gaps as it moves from one engraved structure to another, generating a continuous effect."
This implies to me that once they cleverly figure out how to embed this tech in something like a contact lens, it wouldn't have to "fill in the gaps" and would grant perfect vision in the full vision field. Wild.
- ggchappell 16y ago> This implies to me that once they cleverly figure out how to embed this tech in something like a contact lens, it wouldn't have to "fill in the gaps" and would grant perfect vision in the full vision field. Maybe. I have my doubts, though. The abstract to Zalevsky's paper (see my comment on this HN post) ends as follows: > This is achieved by exploiting the capacity of the visual system for adaptation to contrast as well as its capability of creating a coherent continuous visual field out of discrete lines of sight. So simply focusing light on the retina is apparently not the goal. Rather, it appears that the brain is being sent unusual signals, which it is nonetheless capable of interpreting. In other words, there isn't just optics going on here; there is also some interesting neurology. > Wild. Indeed.
- jacquesm 16y agoThe brain is extremely flexible in the inputs that it will accept, but one problem of such neural re-wiring is that you will have a splitting headache the moment you go back to 'normal' inputs. Read about this mind-blowing experiment, where vision was inverted: http://wearcam.org/tetherless/node4.html http://wearcam.org/tetherless/node4.html