Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu From: lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri) Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds Subject: Re: VR and the handicapped Message-ID: <10438@milton.u.washington.edu> Date: 1 Nov 90 15:53:23 GMT References: <9961@milton.u.washington.edu> <10093@milton.u.washington.edu> Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu Organization: Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene Lines: 103 Approved: hitl@hardy.u.washington.edu sobiloff@acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) writes: >In article <9961@milton.u.washington.edu> esdvt@esdvt.esd.sgi.com (ESD DVT) wri t >es: >> Why wouldn't people who are visually handicapped just have the >> dead nerves or whatever was failing bypassed by hardware so they >>could "see" I think that as stuff like socketing in prosthetics becomes more >>viable this sort of thing would be possible? any flames/comments/support? >Something like this certainly would be nice for both visually handicapped >individuals and non-handicapped individuals. However, our current level of >technology, not to mention our very limited knowledge of higher-order visual >processing, currently prohibits anything like this. Well, "yes and no" to the above statement. I saw a remarkable show a few years back that dealt with computers and handicapped people. Possibly the most amazing development that was presented was artificial vision. It has been a while since I have seen this program (so I don't remember the name of it, or that many details), but I am nearly positive it was on PBS. The artificial vision research was being done with a person who was completely blind. Note that he was not blind from birth, but rather it was caused be some sort of accident or disease later in life. The important thing to remember is that this person *had* be able to see earlier in his lifetime. The experiment that was being carried out was roughly as follows. The scientist had a computer hooked up to a camera, which translated images into a small array of "block" patterns. The "blocks" in this case were digital; in other words, they were either lit or dark. Think of the array as a small monochrome screen. [The computer was large by current standards, but I assume it could be shrunk to a smaller size today.] The computer was connected to the blind person via wires to some part of the person. I don't remember exactly *how* it was being done; possibly the wires led to some unused vision center. I do distinctly remember that the patient was "seeing" bright lights for each "block" the computer turned on, and that this "vision" was being approximated using what remained of the patients functional vision organs. What was happening was that the wires that were connected to the patient were duplicating the visual array created by the computer, so that the blind person could "see" a crude (by normal vision standards) image of what was in front of him. [Note: another way to do this is through a "pain array"; see the note at the end of this posting for more info on this.] There were certainly limitations to this system. It was very low resolution, it was monochrome, and it was slow. Furthermore, only a single image was being presented, so there was no depth information available (as would would get from stereo images). It was also (at the time) very "nonportable," because it is hard to lug a computer the size of a VAX around with you. However, at the time the show was produced the blind patient was able to make out objects in front of him. In fact, he was able to do so well enough to walk amongst them. This system likely would not work in a complex environment (e.g. a street corner with different colored lights for stop, caution, go, walk, don't-walk), but it was an important first step. It was very touching to see the look on the patient's face when first seeing images after a long period of blindness. Unfortunately, I don't have any of the details on this. If anybody knows more about this research, please post more information here. This is certainly relevant to virtual reality because it presents the beginnings of a way to "jack into" a cyberspace. One final note: the "pain array" I referred to above is another form of artificial "vision." The system basically works the same way as the above experiment, except the vision matrix that the computer builds is mapped onto an area of the patients skin using tactile response. The form I have heard of is a simple two-dimensional array of semi-blunt needles. In this case the bright "blocks" in the computers vision matrix are stimulated by pressing the appropriate needles against the skin of the patient (triggering pain sensors), while the "dark" blocks are areas of no stimulation. The "pain array" (which is my term) can be set up over a large, seldom used area (e.g. the pain sensors on a persons back) or over a smaller area (e.g. the inside of a person's forearm). I am not sure how well these "pain arrays" work. >Another problem is that, even if we were able to perform such operations, >they would not help individuals who had been blind since birth or at an >early age. There are numerous physiological developments in the visual >centers of the brain that occur during the first year or so of life. If there >is no vision during this period these developments will not occur, thus >rendering the individual physiologically incapable of processing visual >information, even if the faulty receptors (eyes) are replaced with functional >units. Most definitely! The above research worked because the blind patient *had* seen in the past, and knew what to expect and what the shapes meant. Using the same system for a person blind from birth would (at the very least) require that the patient be taught what the foreign images are; i.e. how they map to real-world objects. -- Christopher Lishka 608-262-4485 "Dad, don't give in to mob mentality!" Wisconsin State Lab. of Hygiene -- Bart Simpson lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu "I'm not, Son. I'm jumping on the bandwagon." uunet!uwvax!uwslh!lishka -- Homer Simpson