The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
this electronic implant would would do the following it would capture the light using a camera which is relatively easy it would process the visual information in a manner similar to the way that the retina normally does as similar as possible and then it would electrically activate the retinal gangin cells by passing current and causing the gangin cells to fire spikes and send those spikes to the brain
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
implanting electrodes on the retina stimulating and causing people who've been profoundly blind for decades to see visual sensation blobs and streaks of light in their visual world that that are reproducible
the concept is that you may be able to bypass those early sections of the retina that capture the light and process the signals and instead build an electronic implant that connects up directly to the retinal ganglin cells