Argus II Bionic Eye:
Good News for Ocular Disorders
Image: Argus II Bionic Eye
Technology appears to be progressing by leaps and
bounds on a weekly to daily basis. Especially when it comes to the developing
fields of biomedical mechanics, one has to wonder if society has already entered
the era of cyborg nanotechnologies. Most recently, this type of technology has
been displayed with the ground-breaking invention of the Argus II epiretinal
prosthesis, also known as the bionic eye. Its capabilities have profoundly allowed
patients suffering from macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa to have
their eye site restored by enhancing retinal stimulation and spatial resolution
in the eye (Cruz et al. 2013). For sci-fi fans and science buffs alike, this is
an incredibly exciting breakthrough where science has exceeded the normal
limitations of the human body and enhanced it through the implementation of
mechanical parts.
After surgical implantation of the retinal microchip,
“the Argus II operates by using a miniature camera mounted in eyeglasses that
captures images and wirelessly sends the information to a microprocessor (worn
on a belt) that converts the data to an electronic signal and transmits it to a
receiver on the eye. The pulses travel to the optic nerve and, ultimately, to
the brain, which perceives patterns of light and dark spots corresponding to
the electrodes stimulated” (Considine 2013). The Argus II system essentially
bypasses the damaged cones and rods in the eye and allows for the
electrochemical impulses to proceed down the optic nerve to the brain.
There have been studies involving transplant
patients of the Argus II system that have demonstrated high efficacy rates to
the restoration of lost eye site. In one study, 21 subjects were examined 6
months after the implantation and demonstrated a 87% improvement in eye site
(Humayun et al.2012). Another study conducted on 28 subjects with the epiretinal
implantation device, demonstrated high rates of patients accurately identifying
letters and words which was indicative of reproducible spatial resolution (Cruz
et al. 2013). Both of these studies help to validate the successful advancements
made in biotechnologies involving artificial eye transplants.
Lastly, with technology progressing at such a fast
pace, it’s vital that the ethical systems of modern society stay up to speed
with developing biotechnologies. The ethical implications of such technologies
should be democratically assessed and laws set in place to protect human civil
liberties. I think these kind of nanotechnologies could improve the lives of
many who are living with crippling disabilities. On the flip side of that coin,
I think it’s also important to critically evaluate the potential repercussions
of hybridizing man with machine and what the future consequences will be for generations
to come.
References:
Considine, A. [2013 Feb 15]. New bionic eye can make
you just like the terminator [Internet]. Motherboard web site [cited in 2014
Oct 13] Available from: http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/blog/new-bionic-eye-can-make-you-just-like-the-terminator
Cruz L, Coley BF, Dorn J, Merlini F, Filley E, Christopher
P, Chen FK, Wuyyuru V, Sahel J, Stanga P, Humayun M, Greenberg RJ, Dagnelie G. 2013.
The Argus II epiretinal prosthesis system allows letter and word reading and
long-term function in patients with profound vision loss. The British Journal
of Ophthalmology [Internet]. 97(5): 632–636. Available from: http://serach.ebscohost.com/.
Humayun M, Dorn JD, Ahuja AK, Caspi A, Filley E, Dagnelie
G, Salzmann J, Santos A, Duncan J, daCruz L, Mohand-Said S, Eliott D, McMahon
M, Greenberg RJ. 2012. Preliminary 6 month results from the Argus II epiretinal
prosthesis feasibility study. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society [Internet].
Available from: http://serach.ebscohost.com/.
Image 2: Argus II (Artificial Retina)
This is really cool technology and I can see this positively affecting many people in the future. The ethical dilemma of combing man with machine is something that is going to be a recurring theme for the next hundred years. I personally believe that it is inevitable that the two will merge. We already have prosthetic limps, the next step would be connecting these limbs to the nervous system to restore more function, which I'm sure is already being explored.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I was really curious about was how these manufactured light and dark spots that come from the microprocessor are created. The Argus II system works by first sending the signal to a processor on a belt, and then from the belt back to the receiver on the eye. Then the electrical signal gets transmitted to the brain as it normally would via the optic nerve. But how does this microprocessor create that initial image and make it accurate? One thing is for sure, technology is amazing, and I believe this article really shows the benefits of adding a little more "machine" into man.
It's amazing the ways that biotechnology is advancing. I am curious, is there any difference in processing time between a bionic eye and a healthy eye? This technology is great and represents a promising advance in quality of life, but if there is a significant processing lag, it seems the technology will need significant improvement before it can be used universally. For instance, it seems to me that a difference in processing speed would make it difficult to use such technology to restore sight to an individual who has damage in one eye, but not the other. Additionally, processing lag could exclude an individual from activities such as driving.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the improvements that might still be coming, the research seems to be off to a good start.
A final question: did the subjects experience improvement with time using the technology? That is, did it take time for the brain to adjust to the technology such that over time, the benefits increased?
The advancements made are truly astounding. The integration of the camera with a processor and a form of signal transduction into the nervous system feels like a combination of Doc Brown and Dr. Frankenstein. The clinical application and opportunity to improve quality of life are both abundant. I am grateful for your nod to the ethical implications that this type of technology lends itself to creating. I appreciate your goal of using democracy to establish proper ethical guidelines to protect civil liberties, but I have to disagree in that I feel this idea is too optimistic. As Paul mentioned in his comment above, we already have a level of cyborg-ism in society and it calls to question resources separating the “haves” from the “have nots” in a way that this level of technology would further emphasize.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that I bring this up is that I fear this topic is going to come crashing down around us sooner than we will be ready for. As future health professionals it will be necessary to give patients guidance on what is the best option for them. Questions I often find asking myself are: What is lost when we add technology to a person? How do we provide it for everyone if everyone wanted/needed it? Is there anything wrong with allowing capitalism to make the decision of who does and does not get treatment? What are the implications to free will when a computer processer begins to tell us what we are experiencing? (I feel like this one really applies here with the processor belt for this product) I’m not sure if there are correct answers to these questions, but amazing advances in technology also require we take a good hard look at our society and what we do. Thanks for the great new technology and the opportunity to reflect on how this technology can change more than just eyesight.