Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!fenn@wpi.wpi.edu
From: fenn@wpi.wpi.edu (Brian Fennell)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: VR and the handicapped
Message-ID: <10582@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 4 Nov 90 15:44:55 GMT
References: <9961@milton.u.washington.edu> <10093@milton.u.washington.edu> <1043
Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Lines: 75
Approved: hitl@hardy.u.washington.edu


In article <10438@milton.u.washington.edu> 
lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri) writes:
...
>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.] 

Your memorys are a bit inaccurate (if I am remembering the same article):

The article, I beleive, was on the series called "the Brain" on PBS.
(but I am not sure.)

There were two experiments, one with a 2x6 surgical inplant that sent
braile images, one that used physical stimulus of the skin of the back
(vibrating, blunt, wooden or metal pegs aproximatly 20x20, the vibration
caused the physical response, no "pain" involved).

The man in the second experiment WAS blind from birth, he had never
seen the flame on a candle before.  (to a blindman flame has no shape
just heat)

I remember that the aparatus of the second experiment was the
peg-array afixed to a chair, and a hand held, video camera, attached
by wires to the chair and a wall monitor of some sort (of the same
resolution).  I don't remember him walking around with this device.

Additional information:
The picture was being processed by the same part of the brain as eye
images, despite not using the optic nerve (in fact using the back).  
This I think was determined using CAT-scan, and radio-active gluecose.

Asside from my own personal experience:
There exists a device called an "Opticon" that uses tiny vibrating metal
pegs to stimulate an image on the index finger, and a small one
character scanner that can be dragged along a line of text.  I have
tried it, no pain.  Anyone can use it with practice, although people
who are blind from birth need to be taught what a printed character
looks like.  These devices are relatively common in the blind
community.  

This idea of people who are blind from birth not being able to use the 
visual center of the brain is 100% wrong.

Brian Fennell=fenn@wpi.wpi.edu