Optic nerve signal interception, interpretation, manipulation and reintroduction for human/computer interface for use in augmented reality

I have been doing a lot of thinking lately about human/computer interfaces in respect to augmented reality. There seem to be, at least to me, a lack of serious research in the field of true human/computer interfaces.
Sure, we’ve been able to control simple systems by training ourselves to modify our brainwaves or flexing muscles to control an artificial limb. But this is more us adapting to the interface than us truly being one with the machine.
I think the main problem has been the lack of very detailed research on how our nervous system actually works. More specifically for this post the optic nerve. There is book after book that describes the anatomy of the retina, optic nerve, optic chiasm, optic tracts, etc. But no where have I been able to find a book or paper on how precisely the optic nerve transfers the signal from the retina to the visual cortex.
It’s estimated that there are 1.2 million nerve fibers that make up the optic nerve.
  • What are these fibers?
  • Does each fiber behave like a wire transferring electrical impulses?
  • Do they work together as one large wire?
  • Do they work in groups of wires transmitting different information?
  • Are the fibers redundant groups transfering the same data in case one is damaged?
  • Do we have to tap each fiber?
  • Is the data transmission bidirectional?
  • Does the eye receive any information from the optic nerve?
  • What is the nature of the signal?
  • Is it straight bit data?
  • Is it a complex modulated signal? Etc.
I can’t seem to find answers to any of these questions. Perhaps I’m not looking hard enough or perhaps there has really been any research into it.If I had the resources required to answer these questions I would very much like to work towards the follow goals or thesis.
Thesis:
Is it possible to splice into the optic nerve (intercept) and feed the signal (for lack of a better term) into a computer, interpret those impulses into raw retinal image data that can be displayed on a computer screen (interpretation), manipulate the raw retinal image data (ie superimpose text) (manipulation) and injecting that altered signal back into the optic nerve for traditional processing by the visual cortex (reintroduction).
If anyone would like to discuss this stuff further drop me a line.
UPDATE

Here is a project that is on the leading edge of this type of research. However, they are interfacing with receptor cells in the retina with a prosthesis and not going straight to the signal. You will still require a functioning or partially functioning eye. Still great science!
Random Additions brought about through discussing this subject

“As to the actual task of intercepting the optic nerve signal, it seems to my blissful ignorance to be a rather straighforward thing. I’m not sure if anyone has actually been able to accomplish it. If you had to tap all 1.2 million optical nerve fibers I could see it being difficult ;) .”
“I have a feeling that many of those nerve fibers are redundant, much like the rest of the brain, and we may only need to intercept a relatively small percentage of them to get the desired result, or at least a close approximation of it.
The technology that I think we should really watch out for it nanotechnology.  In theory the tiny things could independently search out the nerves and attach themselves to it, requiring simply an injection and not risky surgery.  Some form of radio wave or  microwave could then be used to communicate with them, ie. receiving and sending video feed.  Frankly this kind of thing could be extrapolated to any part of the brain.  For example you could create a “movie” where the viewer feels everything the character feels, including all the senses, emotion,  even thoughts.”
There is also the great work that is being done at the Human Connectome Project
More specific to this post, here is a dataset from the University of Utah. The Retinal Connectome Mosaics.
Here is another advancement (April 5, 2010);
Researchers in Australia have developed a “wide-view neurosimulator,” to help give sight back to the blind. By implanting electrodes in the eye, they’ll allow those with degenerative vision loss to see a pixelated version of the world around us.
Related Posts with Thumbnails
Share
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • Dirk

    I was having just the exact same thoughts! I'm really curious to know how the signal is “encoded”, I'm from a computer background so at the moment I am only thinking of it in that sense. Are nerve impulses similar to the changes in voltage used in electrical circuits? Is it possible to tap a nerve? Could I stab myself in the eye with the lead from an oscilloscope and get a signal?! Send me an email!

  • oobleck

    Have you seen this research <http://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(… They imaged neural impulses from the eye via fMRI. Very exciting! It's not quite what you're talking about, but only a slight variation in approach. This is something I'm researching for a product idea.

    Also, I like the statement above about radio transmissions to nano widgets in the eye: bluetooth eyeballs!

  • http://twitter.com/CBrooker Chris Brooker

    That's exactly what I was thinking. I wonder if any researcher have tried that? I'd love to but I have a small problem of no lab to experiment in ;) . I'm really happy to hear that there are others who are also thinking about this.

    I did stumble upon this a few months ago that caught my interest but didn't get a chance to write about it.

    http://gizmodo.com/5366776/mits-eyeball-chip-co…)
    Although it is a little light on the details.

  • http://twitter.com/CBrooker Chris Brooker

    Thanks oobleck! I've heard about this and it's great to now read the paper. Exciting indeed.

    I do extremely appreciate how this knowledge will help us to better understand the brain and how it precesses sensory data in general but I feel that perhaps it's a stage too far. They are trying to understand, once the sensory data has reached the visual cortex, how it's being processed. Essentially, how that brain works. Not an easy question.

    If we could understand the raw data that's being fed into the brain we could modify much more simply then let the visual cortex process it as it's always been done. Essentially leaving the brain out of the equation. Our entire experience is merely how our minds interprets the various sensory information presented to it. Alter the signals and you can significantly alter the perception. It shouldn't be too difficult, but then again, I have no idea.

  • Dirk

    Wow! That is amazing, so I guess the nerve impulses would be a relatively simple analogue representation of light if a microchip can output it to a nerve.

    After reading this page I went on to read about Cochlear Implants that bypass the eardrum, a receiver outside your head transmits a radio signal to the implant which communicates directly with the auditory nerve, which I thought was amazing. Next you could tap the nerve going to your vocal chords, hook the whole system up to a 3g network, psychic communication!!

  • http://twitter.com/CBrooker Chris Brooker

    Here is some interesting new Science!

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627546….

  • http://twitter.com/CBrooker Chris Brooker

    Now that we are able to successful Tap a nerve and get a good connection with the FINE method. Instead of sending signals to muscles. Let's listen to the signals coming from the brain. Let's figure out how this crazy wiring system works.

  • oobleck

    I'm also interested in the auditory aspects of this. Can you share your links and sources please?

  • oobleck

    We could listen to visual signals and visualize auditory signals. Make some wild music. Maybe David Byrne would get in on it.

  • http://twitter.com/CBrooker Chris Brooker

    Hahaha, that would be awesome. That would make a great art project.

  • http://twitter.com/CBrooker Chris Brooker

    All we need now is access to a lab, laboratory mice, neuro surgical equipment, FINE electrodes and an oscilloscope. at the least ;)

  • oobleck

    Do you have lab experience? Are you one of these so called “scientists” I keep hearing about? I can contribute the oscilloscope.

    I figure, if a man can get photos just outside the earth's atmosphere with junk he cobbled together in his garage (http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-balloon-h…), this ought to be doable.

  • http://twitter.com/CBrooker Chris Brooker

    Haha, I only wish. I'm the Manager – Web Development at a software company about as far from “hands dirty” science as you can get. But then we don't have to let that stop us. People have been experimenting in the their garages for thousands of years.

  • oobleck

    Srsly tho. If we're fantasizing. What might it take to do this kind of research at home. A steady hand. A sterile environment. A neuroscience advisor at the least. Some wires and alligator clips. A weather balloon. Some sweet lab coats. Beakers of colored liquid that bubble, steam, and explode occasionally.

    I guess I can't stay srs. It's a pretty tall order. But the possibilities are staggering.

    Wait a minute. It doesn't necessarily have to be living tissue, I reckon. Survival Research Labs has “reanimated” a dead horse with electricity. There might be some way to “activate” a deceased eyeball, say a cows, and interpret the signals if the optic nerve is still attached. I wish I had a link for the horse bit.

  • http://twitter.com/CBrooker Chris Brooker

    I totally agree, Lab coats are key :) I actually had this business idea a few years ago because I was frustrated with this type of problem.

    I wanted to create a fully stocked lab, equipment, supplies, machines (mass spec, fMRIs, EEGs, etc) and rent lab time by the hour. Each new member would have to go through a short orientation on each machine to ensure they knew how to use it correctly. But at least the general public could have access to the equipment and supplies that today is only available to the select few. Kind of the way people can rent time at a garage to work on their cars with all the tools available. We need to lower the cost of entry, real ground breaking science is now out of reach for most people. It's sad.

    Currently the kind of “hacking” we would like to do, we'd like to do in our spare time, not spend years in school and make it a career. I like to be able to bring a more cross-disciplinary approach to these problems. As I see a huge cross-over from the computer world to the biological or a least make one ;)

    That would be a good test but I'd be a little suspicious about the results, there is now way in telling if the current need to reanimate the tissue would contaminate the signal produced. However, there is only one way to find out.

    I think I need to go buy a lab coat.

  • http://www.chrisbrooker.ca/index.php/the-loss-of-science-hackers/ Chris Brooker » The loss of science hackers?

    [...] if you have access to equipment and lab space and are looking for something to do, I have ideas and questions that could use some experimentation. [...]

  • http://www.chrisbrooker.ca/index.php/human-eye-camera/ Chris Brooker » Human Eye Camera

    [...] I have a few more ideas about this here. [...]