Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Biologically extending human vision into the near-infrared: Initial success

experiment.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: Biologically extending human vision into the near-infrared: Initial success

#41

Post by avz »

specialp wrote: post #25

This could certainly be possible. Jay Neitz did experiments on monkeys to cure colorblindness using gene therapy and was successful. [1] He has said that perhaps one day humans can have genes for more color receptors added to be able to see more colors as some birds do. 1. http://www.neitzvision.com/content/genetherapy.html

To see an extra color, i.e. to become tetrachromats, we would need a lot more than a dietary change, so this is an entirely new subject barely related to the original post.

To distinguish an extra color we would need a new type of cone cells with a different spectral response to the three types we already have (called L-, M- and S-cones). We could modify a subset of the existing cells or add new cells. If you modify the existing cells, you then need to teach the visual cortex that the signals coming from the modified cones indicate a new color. How would this be done? If you add new cone cells, you then need to add new neural pathway along the optic nerve and plug it into the visual cortex somehow. How would this be done?

On the other hand, the original experiment proposed to alter the availability of different types of vitamin A by dietary changes with the intention of modifying the spectral response of the existing photosensitive cells so that light of previously invisible wavelength would become visible. This does not increase the number of colors, but changes the range of wavelength corresponding to each color for the affected individual.

Re: Biologically extending human vision into the near-infrared: Initial success

#42

Post by mnw21cam »

possibilistic wrote: post #27
Sami_Lehtinen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK vitamin A is poisonous in larger doses. In Finland they were worried at time that people might be getting to much of vitamin A. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_A

Everything is poisonous at some dosage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose Edit: From this [1] non-scholarly source, "The median lethal dose (LD50 value) of vitamin A injected intramuscularly in a water-miscible form in the young monkey is 0.6 mmol (168 mg) retinol/kg body weight. Extrapolated to a 3-kg child and a 70-kg adult, the total LD50 dose would be 1.8 mmol (500 mg) and 41 mmol (11.8 g) respectiv…

Hence why Isotretinoin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotretinoin) is a restricted drug in many countries, although it is a vitamin A-like chemical that is used to clear up very severe acne. Women who are prescribed the drug in the UK have to provide proof that they are on a reliable form of contraception and are not pregnant when they collect each month's worth of pills. It causes severe birth defects.

Re: Biologically extending human vision into the near-infrared: Initial success

#44

Post by gus_massa »

Copy of a comment I made in a previous submission, a few hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8207152

Well, the data is very noisy. The main problem is that this data doesn't have a before/after comparison. Is the 850nm light visible now or it was always visible???

It's also very difficult to make a fair comparison. The room must be the same, the light sources must be the same (a new coffeepot with a small led can ruin the experiment, removing a coffeepot because it has recently broken can ruin the experiment).

For a preliminary experiment, the before-after comparison is enough. For a serious experiment you need many voluntaries, compare the before-after signals of them all at the same time in the same experimental conditions, and double blind testing.

There is a small possibility that they are measuring "excitement" instead of light. The subject hears that they are now going to test with very near infrared light. He got exited. They measure that. Perhaps the flash makes a slight sound, perhaps the light operator makes a slight sound. (Perhaps the 850nm flash makes a sound that the other flashes don't make?)

Re: Biologically extending human vision into the near-infrared: Initial success

#45

Post by qwerta »

My astronomy friends are into hard-core start gazing. One experiment was in La Palma island with near-perfect night sky at 8 000 feet. One guy could see 8.1 magnitude stars at 80% cases (independent stats). With oxygen and some training he would probably get to 8.5 magnitudes.

There are similar stories with sound etc. I think some people can see near infrared, it is just question of finding them.

Re: Biologically extending human vision into the near-infrared: Initial success

#46

Post by simias »

StavrosK wrote: post #39
ay wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have HTC One to make a comparison - but if you have some "vanilla" remotes laying around and can see the IR LEDs blink in all of them when active - then yeah, probably you do see into the IR and I don't!

Yeah, I just tried both TV remotes (one is just a Samsung remote). I can see all of them, but it's only a faint glow. Try it in a dark room, you should be able to see it.

I'm like the parent, I just can't see the common IR LEDs with the naked eye, not even faintly, not even in pitch darkness with the led 1cm from my eye. I think you just have a skill that we don't. Or maybe you just have IR leds with shorter wavelengths...

Re: Biologically extending human vision into the near-infrared: Initial success

#47

Post by StavrosK »

simias wrote: post #46
StavrosK wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I just tried both TV remotes (one is just a Samsung remote). I can see all of them, but it's only a faint glow. Try it in a dark room, you should be able to see it.

I'm like the parent, I just can't see the common IR LEDs with the naked eye, not even faintly, not even in pitch darkness with the led 1cm from my eye. I think you just have a skill that we don't. Or maybe you just have IR leds with shorter wavelengths...

Hmm, this thread would suggest that many people can see it:

http://forums.logitech.com/t5/Alert-Security-Systems/IR-LEDS...

Security cameras with IR leds are pretty bright to me. I can easily tell when the IR leds are on. Have you noticed anything like that?

Re: Biologically extending human vision into the near-infrared: Initial success

#48

Post by ay »

StavrosK wrote: post #39
ay wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have HTC One to make a comparison - but if you have some "vanilla" remotes laying around and can see the IR LEDs blink in all of them when active - then yeah, probably you do see into the IR and I don't!

Yeah, I just tried both TV remotes (one is just a Samsung remote). I can see all of them, but it's only a faint glow. Try it in a dark room, you should be able to see it.

Nope, I just tried and went into a pitch-black room with a remote control whose LED on the Mac camera looks very bright, and tried to look at it while activating the LED - nothing, not a blip, I can not see the IR LED with my eyes...

Re: Biologically extending human vision into the near-infrared: Initial success

#49

Post by StavrosK »

ay wrote: post #48
StavrosK wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I just tried both TV remotes (one is just a Samsung remote). I can see all of them, but it's only a faint glow. Try it in a dark room, you should be able to see it.

Nope, I just tried and went into a pitch-black room with a remote control whose LED on the Mac camera looks very bright, and tried to look at it while activating the LED - nothing, not a blip, I can not see the IR LED with my eyes...

Huh, weird. I'm going to ask a few friends to see if they can see it, thanks.

Re: Biologically extending human vision into the near-infrared: Initial success

#50

Post by TeMPOraL »

irollboozers wrote: post #23
leoc wrote: post #22

On the other end of the scale: http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/02/14/165202/followup-u...

It's funny that most of the jokes tend to revolve around becoming some sort of super hero. The stranger thing is that no one has pondered the potential cons having the ability to see beyond the spectrum. Or maybe I don't read enough comic books?

In that topic I found the following quote to resonate strongly with me:

"I don’t want to be human. I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly, because I have to — I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language, but I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I’m a machine, and I can know much more, I could experience so much more, but I’m trapped in this absurd body. And why? Because my five creators thought that God wanted it that way."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqzmEtLe8PM

Post reply on HN