Augmented Reality in a Contact Lens(spectrum.ieee.org)
spectrum.ieee.org
Augmented Reality in a Contact Lens
http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-reality-in-a-contact-lens
17 comments
This is a "display on your eye", not Augmented Reality. Nothing is mentioned on solving the real problems of rendering perspective correct imagery layered over the real world, adjusting for head movement, saccades, microsaccades, gait, movement of vehicles, etc.
This is what Google Glass isn't even trying to do.
This is what Google Glass isn't even trying to do.
Modern airliners have HUDs that display "perspective-correct imagery layered over the real world". It's useful for landing in the fog.
Airliners have almost none of the problems the OP mentioned. The displays are several feet away from the movement of the eye. Movement of the sensors is slow and smooth. The target distance is near infinity in optical focus. The overlayed target is a generally a giant flat rectangle. These are some delicious simplifying assumptions.
The application of augmented reality using contact lenses and other types of head up displays was explored in the wonderful science fiction novel "Rainbows End", which was written by none other than "Vernor Vinge".
I remember one of the characters from the story, Robert Gu's friend, clutching a laptop -- a hopeless relic in that era -- saying, "I want to see what is really there, not what they want me to see."
I get the impression that would be me in that future, worried about what was real or not, or how many false memories I'd be recalling because of something that was shown to me. I'm probably just being paranoid, but so was this character and if I recall correctly, it worked out for him in the end.
I get the impression that would be me in that future, worried about what was real or not, or how many false memories I'd be recalling because of something that was shown to me. I'm probably just being paranoid, but so was this character and if I recall correctly, it worked out for him in the end.
Never managed to finish that book. It also appears extensively in Peter F Hamilton's Commenwealth Saga.
Thoroughly recommend getting hold of the third episode of the British SciFi show Black Mirror.
Thoroughly recommend getting hold of the third episode of the British SciFi show Black Mirror.
I'll jump in with my favorite sci-fi book, "Daemon" and "Freedom(TM)" by Daniel Suarez.
It features something roughly like Google Glass, plus Reddit Karma acting like BitCoins and like XP in World of Warcraft.
It features something roughly like Google Glass, plus Reddit Karma acting like BitCoins and like XP in World of Warcraft.
"Rainbows End" was indeed wonderful. Another great exploration of AR in speculative fiction (and my personal favorite) is Charles Stross' "Halting State".
Among probably a couple dozen other sci-fi books. But Rainbows End was a good one nonetheless.
I'm looking forward to Glass, but man, I wouldn't touch smart contact lenses with a 10-foot pole.
Maybe -- maybe if they couldn't connect to the Internet. I know I'm playing paranoid devil's advocate here, but if they have any sort of connectivity, I'm going to be terrified (maybe irrationally so) of the prospect of someone figuring out how to intercept them and blind me.
Maybe -- maybe if they couldn't connect to the Internet. I know I'm playing paranoid devil's advocate here, but if they have any sort of connectivity, I'm going to be terrified (maybe irrationally so) of the prospect of someone figuring out how to intercept them and blind me.
Uhh what if no physical configuration of the LEDs is sufficient for blinding? This does not seem like an issue if the hardware is incapable by design.
Besides, such a product could arguably be more useful than a car, and certainly more safe; you've driven, haven't you? I think you're being a little naive and hasty. I could see a similar comment 20 years ago about cell phones and "brain damage."
Besides, such a product could arguably be more useful than a car, and certainly more safe; you've driven, haven't you? I think you're being a little naive and hasty. I could see a similar comment 20 years ago about cell phones and "brain damage."
Maybe someone could still maliciously make it display self-illuminated shock porn that stays in view even if you close your eyes.
. . . so turn it off? I mean, someone could hack your computer and (effectively) do the same thing for the couple of minutes it takes you to figure out what's happening and flip the power switch. It's a screen. They're all screens.
The real danger is from more subtle manipulation, assuming most people come to trust what's being displayed. That's true of any information source that can be spoofed, though. GPS errors are bad enough already.
The real danger is from more subtle manipulation, assuming most people come to trust what's being displayed. That's true of any information source that can be spoofed, though. GPS errors are bad enough already.
His point was that turning it off is not an option: The automated porn-feed injected into your glasses/contacts/etc could make it offensive enough to effectively deny service.
Even if not porn, Spam WILL be targeted at these eventually. I recall a scene in either "The Diamond Age" or perhaps a Gibson novel where the characters were using smart chopsticks that had been hit by malware which had once spewed ads but in that particular are of town had been spewing porn. Onto chopsticks.
(With my luck, it was Rainbow's End that had this scene -- I forget where I saw it, but it was memorable.)
There will always be someone trying to find a way to inject ads.
Even if not porn, Spam WILL be targeted at these eventually. I recall a scene in either "The Diamond Age" or perhaps a Gibson novel where the characters were using smart chopsticks that had been hit by malware which had once spewed ads but in that particular are of town had been spewing porn. Onto chopsticks.
(With my luck, it was Rainbow's End that had this scene -- I forget where I saw it, but it was memorable.)
There will always be someone trying to find a way to inject ads.
> You could get a phantascopic system planted directly on your retinas,
> just as Bud's sound system lived on his eardrums. You could even get
> telæsthetics patched into your spinal column at various key
> vertebrae. But this was said to have its drawbacks: some concerns
> about long-term nerve damage, plus it was rumored that hackers for big
> media companies had figured out a way to get through the defenses that
> were built into such systems, and run junk advertisements in your
> peripheral vision (or even spang in the fucking middle) all the
> time—even when your eyes were closed. Bud knew a guy like that who'd
> somehow gotten infected with a meme that ran advertisements for roach
> motels, in Hindi, superimposed on the bottom right-hand corner of his
> visual field, twenty-four hours a day, until the guy whacked himself.
-- Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age
> just as Bud's sound system lived on his eardrums. You could even get
> telæsthetics patched into your spinal column at various key
> vertebrae. But this was said to have its drawbacks: some concerns
> about long-term nerve damage, plus it was rumored that hackers for big
> media companies had figured out a way to get through the defenses that
> were built into such systems, and run junk advertisements in your
> peripheral vision (or even spang in the fucking middle) all the
> time—even when your eyes were closed. Bud knew a guy like that who'd
> somehow gotten infected with a meme that ran advertisements for roach
> motels, in Hindi, superimposed on the bottom right-hand corner of his
> visual field, twenty-four hours a day, until the guy whacked himself.
-- Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age
In my (admittedly limited) experience people don't weld contacts to their eyes, nor are contacts capable of physically restraining you from pushing an 'Off' button. I suppose you could attack someone with epilepsy this way.
The rest of your post is rather more accurate. Hence the need for good security (on devices that you don't wear as well as ones that you do).
The rest of your post is rather more accurate. Hence the need for good security (on devices that you don't wear as well as ones that you do).
So you take the contacts out. It takes like two seconds.
Wow, that's terrifying.
This again? As usual, the problem is casually swept away deep in the text:
> By now you’re probably wondering how a person wearing one of our contact lenses would be able to focus on an image generated on the surface of the eye.
Yes, that is a bit of a problem. I'd say it's the main problem. Quite a bit of hand-waving here, just like the many other contact-screen speculations.
> By now you’re probably wondering how a person wearing one of our contact lenses would be able to focus on an image generated on the surface of the eye.
Yes, that is a bit of a problem. I'd say it's the main problem. Quite a bit of hand-waving here, just like the many other contact-screen speculations.
Got a minor in optical engineering minor back in the day. I think it is theoretically possible to create a waveform with those LED's that would converge to an image at a distance. It's a similar problem to the recent deep field cameras on the market today that look at the waveform across the thousands of lenslets and reconstruct the image at multiple virtual focal planes.
That said, those calculations are wicked complicated and take computational power, so hopefully some genius PhD comes up with an algorithm to generate those wavelet images in O(n).
That said, those calculations are wicked complicated and take computational power, so hopefully some genius PhD comes up with an algorithm to generate those wavelet images in O(n).
An array of lasers which was columinated at the point of emission could do it (a well of 500nm cavities, with an LED module at the bottom could do it.
On the other hand: tensor displays are basically already there for what you say (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r6lY8S4A6E).
It's a pretty solvable problem, we're just lacking the miniaturization (and power source) to make it practical.
On the other hand: tensor displays are basically already there for what you say (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r6lY8S4A6E).
It's a pretty solvable problem, we're just lacking the miniaturization (and power source) to make it practical.
Future product idea, ever-cool eye drops. Keep the CPU in your contacts from over heating with this fast evaporating fluid.
Forget about AR contact lenses, I'd be stoked if they made a lens that is safe and comfortable to wear and doesn't have to be thrown out every 2-4 weeks. :)
Curious to know what you've tried. I've been using B&L Soflens Torics [1] for about 10 years now, no complaints. They're supposed to last for a few weeks but I've found I can usually wear them with no discomfort or blurriness for 6 months at a time.
(For the record, I have terrible eyesight. Different astigmatisms in both eyes and approaching -10 diopters.)
[1] http://www.bausch.com/en/Our-Products/Contact-Lenses/Contact...
(For the record, I have terrible eyesight. Different astigmatisms in both eyes and approaching -10 diopters.)
[1] http://www.bausch.com/en/Our-Products/Contact-Lenses/Contact...
I've been using Acuvue Oasys (IIRC) for a while now. I'm on the 4-week disposables but my optometrist is getting worried about increased blood vessel growth in my cornea. I think my eyes may just be particularly sensitive - this is happening despite me wearing lenses for a max of 12 hours a day and not exceeding the recommended 4 weeks of wear per lens.
I had problems with Acuvue Oasys back in the day as well, but I'm sure it varies from person to person. Ask your eye doctor to order trial pairs from different brands. That's how I eventually found the ones that worked for me.
I had permanent redeye and frequent allergic reactions when I was using Acuvue Oasys lenses. Some were pretty bad; I couldn't wear my lenses for weeks at a time and had to get $130/oz eyedrops to get rid of the irritation. After switching to a different brand of lenses the problems went away. My sister had a similar experience.
What's wrong with having to throw them out every 2-4 weeks? :-)
I used to wear contacts every day, and even wore the daily disposables for a while. Those were actually really convenient.
I used to wear contacts every day, and even wore the daily disposables for a while. Those were actually really convenient.
That's just Google Glass 10.0. Let's not get too ahead of ourselves. We don't even have Glass-level glasses available in the mainstream market yet.
One step closer to Sight (a short futuristic film from last year).
http://vimeo.com/46304267
http://vimeo.com/46304267
I've had this nagging feeling that Google Glass type devices are going to gain traction far faster than anyone expects. Personally I have no inclination towards this type of connectivity. I'm fairly amazed by my regular eyesight, and already have a problem processing the information it provides.
My fear is that as ubiquitious, wearable computing takes over, it will increase the pressure to be connected all the time, as it further lay a meta network over the physical world. Of course culture will start to develop quickly around this new space, and those that don't want to wear such a device will be hopelessly left out of vital activities.
As a sliver of hope on the opposite end, maybe those who choose to stick with natural senses can improve those through mindfullness type methods. This might provide balancing benefits.
I don't understand the impulse towards this type of interface. I don't feel that great when I'm online, I have a feeling of being in alternate space, a mental space, and being kind of detached from "real" reality.
How about a drug that would improve standard perception and cognition at low cost and minimal side effects? That seems like technology that I could get behind!
My fear is that as ubiquitious, wearable computing takes over, it will increase the pressure to be connected all the time, as it further lay a meta network over the physical world. Of course culture will start to develop quickly around this new space, and those that don't want to wear such a device will be hopelessly left out of vital activities.
As a sliver of hope on the opposite end, maybe those who choose to stick with natural senses can improve those through mindfullness type methods. This might provide balancing benefits.
I don't understand the impulse towards this type of interface. I don't feel that great when I'm online, I have a feeling of being in alternate space, a mental space, and being kind of detached from "real" reality.
How about a drug that would improve standard perception and cognition at low cost and minimal side effects? That seems like technology that I could get behind!
[deleted](1)
[2009]
I wear contact lenses. I hate having to put contact lenses on every morning. The idea of having perfectly good eyeballs, but putting contact lenses on anyway seems very depressing to me.
I tried wearing contact lenses for a little bit and I found them to be horribly uncomfortable and they would fall out if I blinked too often. For people like me who do not get along well with contacts, I really hope that they don't become necessary anytime in the future.
You probably haven't found the right brand for you. I wear mine 14 hours a day and barely ever notice them. Experiment, you can usually ask for free samples.
The day I first tried on contacts, I tried every brand my optometrist carried, most of which wouldn't stay in at all. I took samples of both varieties that would fit to try wearing for a week. Both had issues staying in and both caused serious irritation so I couldn't wear either for more than an hour.
While there might be a brand that would work for me, I have had no luck finding it.
While there might be a brand that would work for me, I have had no luck finding it.
This reminds me of a Futurama episode: http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/EyePhone
Fancy.
All I want for now is a pair of glasses similar to sunglasses - but with HDMI in at 1080p projecting a 30in screen at 3ft.
My question is how would the human eye focus on something that close to it?
Torchwood!
Am I the only one here who is amazingly creeped out by the very idea of putting anything directly on their own eyeball?
As a wearer of contact lenses I'm surprised how often people express this sentiment :-)
It takes some getting used to (I seem to remember, but I've been wearing them for 15 years), but it's not that bad, honest!
It takes some getting used to (I seem to remember, but I've been wearing them for 15 years), but it's not that bad, honest!
While I have given it a try and had terrible panic attacks. Maybe if I kept at it, I'd get used to it but crossing that barrier was too much for me.
With the exception of the first thirty seconds, or so, after putting them in, I consider them far more comfortable than glasses.
https://plus.google.com/100149980664588993669/about