Quote:Original post by Calin
do they attach the fiber to some loose nervs(neurons) or it's the brain area responsible with vision(sight)?

My understanding is that they can make any neuron become photo-sensitive by infecting it with engineered virus. Neurons don't have to be in visual cortex, arbitrary patch of brain could be made photo sensitive, and it could allow for much finer control than electrode implants.

OMG I can see it now, a button that my wife controls that sends flashes of light into my brain when she wants me to go shopping.

Quote:Original post by Dmytry
frob: you're idiot or pretending to? there is obvious important application: camera interface for blind; current methods (electrode array) allow for like 100x100 pixels at best, while optical system can allow for maximal resolution (a pixel per neuron).

No, I am quite aware that the Wired news article was referring to hope for blind people, and allusions that it could help brain damage, depression, anxiety, and other psychologic issues. The article also mentioned that the light would actually control the subject's behaviors, which is an astounding leap from the paper.

I am also quite aware that the actual published chemistry paper was referring to a very different problem, that of mortality rates and transferability of the existing process in rhesus monkeys.


Like most news articles on scientific advancement, the writer omits the actual improvements (translational methods and mortality in primates) and talks about whatever they want (controlling the subject's behavior). That was the point of my own little spiel.

Quote:Original post by d000hg

Quote:Original post by Dmytry
frob: you're idiot or pretending to? there is obvious important application: camera interface for blind; current methods (electrode array) allow for like 100x100 pixels at best, while optical system can allow for maximal resolution (a pixel per neuron).

Maybe he just isn't aware that the electrode method actually works, and does allow us to input visual data into a brain?

No, I read the article which opens with "Flashes of light may one day be used to control the human brain, and that day just got a lot closer."

It does not open with "A cure for blindness is one stop closer", or "Medical conditions in the brain may have a new cure". (Sadly a few other sources say that the paper is a cure to various mental conditions.)

The actual quotes from the researchers said it may help eventually treat brain problems. The quotes from the researchers even touched on the fact that the actual paper was about mortality rates and translation of existing technology. But the Wired reporters did not.


The reporter said it "demonstrates not only that the technology works in primates, but also that it is safe." But the actual report is quite different, only that mortality rates are significantly down. Just because most of them now survive does not mean the process is "safe" by any means, as many monkeys still died in the process.




Instead, Wired magazine went with a mind control headline and introductory paragraph, and that the process is now "safe".

Quote:Original post by frob
Like most news articles on scientific advancement, the writer omits the actual improvements (translational methods and mortality in primates) and talks about whatever they want (controlling the subject's behavior). That was the point of my own little spiel.

Was it? Didn't look like that was the point, at all. Starts with "Ignoring the reporter who likes hype" and then goes on how unimportant and geeky it really is.

BTW, strangely enough, there seem to be no free news articles about that besides wired one, and original paper that I can find requires purchase (frob, did you purchase it or what? lol).
Anyhow, I'd rather talk about the technology rather than about wired magazine having rather silly reporting style (the "laser controlled humans" is surely a funny headline). At least they report about genuinely interesting research, not just new-age bs.

Regarding the significance... there is very long way from growing few individual light sensitive neurons in petri dish to genetically changing live neurons in monkeys by using engineered virus; even more than that, it was shown that virus caused no damage to those neurons (once they got the technique right, which understandably was hard and took lives of few monkeys).
Classic genetic modification would be like making a breed of monkeys with light-sensitive brains; this is application of something far more advanced, editing DNA inside live cells without having to wait for cell to divide, which is in itself rather amazing and applicable to wide variety of problems.
As for benefit to humans, it is almost there - humans are much closer to monkeys than monkeys are to mice (and mice is much closer to humans than fish to mice, and I wont even talk about flies which aren't even vertebrates).

[Edited by - Dmytry on May 3, 2009 5:11:41 AM]

Very cool research indeed. I wouldnt have guessed it was possible with todays methods.

Quote:Original post by Dmytry
BTW, strangely enough, there seem to be no free news articles about that besides wired one, and original paper that I can find requires purchase (frob, did you purchase it or what? lol).

No, apparently I have very advanced Google skills.

Specifically, I searched for MIT Ed Boyden Xue Han and was able to pull up several news articles, their research lab, the specific article being referenced, and several other papers by Dr. Boyden and Dr. Han. A few more minutes on CiteSeer and I was able to read some of the related work that they referenced in their paper.