4 ms·

Light in visible spectrum is emitted by the contact lenses. There can be no optical focusing for that light. No image formation on the retina. That means the us

by M95D 1y ago

Light in visible spectrum is emitted by the contact lenses. There can be no optical focusing for that light. No image formation on the retina. That means the user may see that there is IR light somewhere around, possibly the general direction where it's coming from (left vs right), but that's all. No IR image, not even general shapes.

itishappy 1y ago
I noticed the same thing, and while the article comments on it, I suspect the comments may be inaccurate: > Because the contact lenses have limited ability to capture fine details (due to their close proximity to the retina, which causes the converted light particles to scatter), the team also developed a wearable glass system using the same nanoparticle technology, which enabled participants to perceive higher-resolution infrared information. No, putting the contact closer to the retina would improve imaging, because it would have less distance to scatter. Glasses will not fix this. A potential solution would be implanting these nanoparticles directly above the retina, but that's a significantly more invasive option than what's being described here.
- M95D 1y ago
  Well, you could even put them behind the retina. The photoreceptors of the retina are all upside-down, facing the back of the eye.
  - itishappy 1y ago
    All the benefits with few of the downsides. That's pretty clever!
amelius 1y ago
You can also focus a pixel by guiding it through a narrow tube, basically cutting off any out-of-focus light. Maybe they use meta-materials to do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial
hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
Yeah, the research is interesting, but the headline is, as usual, bs clickbait, also known as "false". The article also mentions at the end that the contacts are only sensitive enough to detect IR emitted by an LED - they're not sensitive enough to "see" ambient IR. A far cry from "Contacts let you see in the dark with your eyes closed".

by M95D 1y ago

itishappy 1y ago

I noticed the same thing, and while the article comments on it, I suspect the comments may be inaccurate: > Because the contact lenses have limited ability to capture fine details (due to their close proximity to the retina, which causes the converted light particles to scatter), the team also developed a wearable glass system using the same nanoparticle technology, which enabled participants to perceive higher-resolution infrared information. No, putting the contact closer to the retina would improve imaging, because it would have less distance to scatter. Glasses will not fix this. A potential solution would be implanting these nanoparticles directly above the retina, but that's a significantly more invasive option than what's being described here.

M95D 1y ago
Well, you could even put them behind the retina. The photoreceptors of the retina are all upside-down, facing the back of the eye.
- itishappy 1y ago
  All the benefits with few of the downsides. That's pretty clever!

amelius 1y ago

You can also focus a pixel by guiding it through a narrow tube, basically cutting off any out-of-focus light. Maybe they use meta-materials to do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

Yeah, the research is interesting, but the headline is, as usual, bs clickbait, also known as "false". The article also mentions at the end that the contacts are only sensitive enough to detect IR emitted by an LED - they're not sensitive enough to "see" ambient IR. A far cry from "Contacts let you see in the dark with your eyes closed".