More on Field A Vision! (fwd)

From: Mike Freeman (mikef@pacifier.com)
Date: Sat Aug 19 1995 - 00:07:38 PDT


This dude just won't give up! Gues there isn't much hope for someone who
won't listen to those he would serve.

Forwarded message:
>From netcom.com!owner-wacwimtbb-l Fri Aug 18 23:06:15 1995 remote from pacifier
From: nu7i@netcom.com (Darrell Shandrow)
Message-Id: <199508190529.WAA03139@netcom13.netcom.com>
Subject: More on Field A Vision!
To: wacwimtbb-l@netcom.com
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 22:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 7002
Sender: owner-wacwimtbb-l@netcom.com
Precedence: list

Hello. The following is the response to the NFB R&D letter regarding
this device. It's interesting...

Article 367 of alt.comp.blind-users:
Xref: netcom.com alt.comp.blind-users:367
Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: daharrell@aol.com (DAHarrell)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.blind-users
Subject: Feel-A-Vision: Common Misinformation
Date: 18 Aug 1995 14:23:59 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 126
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <412lrv$9tn@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: daharrell@aol.com (DAHarrell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

FAVision: Common Misinformation
by David Albert Harrell

On August 16, 1995, Robert S. Jaquiss Jr. of The National Federation of
the Blind published a letter addressing my FAVision invention and
explaining why his Federation has no interest in helping develop this
devise. He cited several points which he considers to be serious impasses
to the success of this method. I will now attempt to answer each of these
concerns.

Robert S. Jaquiss Jr. writes:
     Recently, David A Harrell has issued articles
on the Internet and has been in correspondence with the Research
and Development (R&D) committee of the National Federation of the
Blind. The R&D committee has carefully reviewed Mr. Harrell's
articles and correspondence. Because there has been discussion of
Mr. Harrell's proposal on the Internet, the R&D committee is
responding publicly.

     Mr. Harrell proposes that a system can be constructed which
will obtain an image, process that image and "display" it on the
skin of a person using an array of stimulators. The manner of
stimulation could be electrical, mechanical (tickling or pressure)
or thermal (using a laser). One of the premises used is that a
large number of stimulating elements would be used (100,000) in the
array. There are some fundamental problems with this proposed
device. These are:

Robert S. Jaquiss Jr. Questions:
1. In order for a stimulator to work, there must be a nerve
     ending to be stimulated. There must, in fact, be a nerve
     ending of the proper type for each of the stimulators. The
     density of nerve endings varies from place to place on the
     human body. The fingertips, hands and face have the greatest
     density of tactile nerve endings per square inch; while the
     back has fewer tactile nerve endings per square inch. There
     are far fewer heat sensor nerves than tactile sensor nerves.
     A high resolution display is of no use unless it can be
     perceived.

D A Harrell reply: (Reprinted from the article: Feel-A-Vision: Some
Excellent Questions)

The question is will the density of nerve receptors, in the dermal areas
being considered, be adequate to handle the degree of resolution that I am
suggesting?

Response:
This is a very common concern; however, even a crude scaled grid, such as
a 12" by 12" area of stimulation, spaced at 1/32 of an inch intervals,
delivers a resolution of 147,456 picts, which does not in fact surpass the
density of the receptors available, even in comparatively sparse
dermal-nerve ending areas.

Furthermore, the human factor must be considered, ie, the sensitivity of a
given area may actually increase with use and necessity. For instance, I
suspect that the hearing of a sightless person is sharper, due in some
degree, to this sense being utilized as a primary and necessary endeavor.

Robert S. Jaquiss Jr. Questions:
2. The second problem occurs, with the use of a two dimensional
     array to observe a three dimensional world. Humans have
     stereoscopic vision and binaural hearing. We see three
     dimensional objects because our eyes are set apart. The brain
     receives two slightly different views of the same object. The
     difference is used to provide depth perception. People with
     only one eye have no depth perception. Our ears provide two
     slightly different sound images. These allow people to
     aurally locate sources of sound in all three dimensions. It
     is very difficult to convert a three dimensional image into
     two dimensions. This is why artists draw in perspective.
     Drawing in perspective allows an artist to make lifelike
     pictures. One answer is to have the array of stimulators give
     variable amounts of stimulation. This greatly complicates the
     construction of the array and its associated processor.

D A Harrell reply:
Obviously, unless there are two fields of stimulation being delivered to
the subject, there will be no depth perception. However, the devise would
clearly still be of great value, even without depth perception, just as a
one-eyed person makes use of a one dimensional image.

Robert S. Jaquiss Jr. Questions:
3. The third problem is that of constructing such a complicated
     device. 100,000 stimulators will each have (Depending on
     the type.) several components. This makes the component
     count very high. A machine of this complexity would have
     nearly as many components as a commercial jet airplane.
     The problems of manufacturing and maintenance are
     enormous.

D A Harrell reply:
The construction of various experimental kinds of tactile signal emitters
is well within the reach of technology today; in fact, most of the
proposed versions of this emitter portion are fairly simple, containing no
moving parts. Therefore, I don't believe the analogy to a jet airplane is
valid. Developing this emitter element would be more like constructing
the flight recorder (black box) from scratch, except that the flight
recorder does have moving parts.
 
Robert S. Jaquiss Jr. Questions:
     There is also the problem of power
     consumption. If each of 100,000 stimulators required .01
     watt to operate, the user would need a power source of
     one kilowatt. This is more power than used by a full
     sized microwave oven, coffee maker, iron or hair dryer.
     Carrying enough batteries for several hours of use would
     be difficult to say the least.

D A Harrell reply:
This is perfect example of the kind of misinformation and lack of
understand that prevails by persons attempting to evaluate the technical
aspects of this invention. I am sure that Robert S. Jaquiss Jr. is
sincere, and has the genuine welfare of blind persons in mind. But the
fact is that only one of the 100,000 plus emitter points would be firing
at a time, delivering thousands of pict-signals per second (just as with a
conventional TV). This reduces the power consumption to .01 watts at any
given single moment in time.

Robert S. Jaquiss Jr has the last word:
In conclusion, the Research and Development committee of the
National Federation of the Blind does not consider the device
proposed by David Harrell to be possible, or practical. We do not
recommend that funds be sought or provided for this kind of
research.

-- 
Mike Freeman            |       Internet: mikef@pacifier.com
GEnie: M.FREEMAN11      |       Amateur Radio Callsign: K7UIJ
/* PGP2.6.2 PUBLIC KEY available via finger or PGP key server */
... Virtue is its own punishment.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 02 2012 - 01:30:03 PST