“Blind Patient Reads Words
Stimulated Directly onto the Retina.” Biologynews.net,
Web. 22 Nov. 2012. http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2012/11/22/blind_patient_reads_words_stimulated_directly_onto_the_retina.html
In the article, “Blind patient reads
words stimulated directly onto the retina” the author speaks mainly of this new
breakthrough for scientists and all people affected by blindness. This
discovery is, for the first time ever, scientists have found a way to send
braille patterns right into the eye of a blind person. This, therefore, allows
them to view and then decipher the braille patterns depicted, which essentially
is almost allowing them to read.
This article and information is an
incredibly important and groundbreaking discovery because it serves as the
light at the end of the tunnel for all blind people who believed that regaining
their sight was an insurmountable feat and can also lead to more discoveries in
this field of research. “…We projected and then read individual letters in less
than a second with up to 89% accuracy,” stated a researchers and although 89%
accuracy may not seem perfect, in a situation where you are allowing the blind
to view braille it is a huge success.
Although this article was impeccably
written, there were a group of things the author could have added, or changed
to make it even better. One of these changes could have been a simplified
explanation of the process with which these scientists accomplished the
stimulation of braille. The author also could have also cut down on the
confusing, long excess explanations he gave. Another thing the author could
have done was give his/her opinion on the experiment, its results and its
impact.
ReplyDeleteJim Grant
My classmate Mary Clare reviewed the article, “Blind patient reads words stimulated directly onto the retina.” Although she stated the article had some flaws in the way it was written I believe she fully understood the article. I think that Mary Clare had a very good use of vocab she used very enriched words and I felt it enhanced the review. I also liked how she was able to give her point of view, she stated that the writer had some problems portraying the ideas well.
The article was great and very interesting, but there were a couple issues with the review. First off she said something that comes off a little off putting when put into this situation. “…because it serves as the light at the end of the tunnel for all blind people…” I think she should have avoided this phrasing because blindness is normally the malfunctioning of eyes being able to take in light. Also in the review her quote comes out of nowhere and I found it a bit confusing, so I think she should have eased in the quote.
But it was a good review ant I thought it was really well written. Also the statistic about the patients being able to report back with 89% accuracy is a great development.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy classmate Mary Clare Connor did a reflection on the article, ““Blind Patient Reads Words Stimulated Directly onto the Retina.” It was an article that talked about the new discovery that doctors found. This breakthrough in science has made so that blind patients will basically be able to read. They found a way to send braille patterns directly to the eye of the blind person. Mary did a great job on this reflection. One thing that she did particularly well was choose an interesting topic. Since she chose a topic that was interesting it made her writing more enjoyable to read. Another thing that Mary did well was use exact statistics. She explained how only 89% of the braille messages would be accurate to the patient. One final thing that Mary did well was not talk too much about her own topic and express her opinion.
ReplyDeleteEven though Mary did many things right, there were still some things that she could improve upon. She didn’t use a quote that proved her discovery true. She used the quote for statistics which is something she could have said in her own words. Another thing that Mary could have done to improve her writing would be to find another source. She only used her article which was a good source, but another one would have made the writing better.
Overall, Mary did a great job on this assignment. She talked about this fascinating new finding that could revolutionize the way that blind people read. One thing that I learned from her reflection was that a blind person could see braille in their eyes which would allow them to read. Ultimately, her paper was success that she did a great job on.
My classmate Mary Clare did a great job on her review on the article “Blind Patient Reads Words Simulated Directly onto the Retina.” First, she presented the info very well with a lot of statistics. This helped the reader understand exactly what percent did what. Also, she made a good analogy by saying the light at the end of the tunnel. Lastly, she used good factual examples from the article. For instance, when she talks about the braille patterns being put into the eye. Even though Mary Clare’s article was good, there are a few things she could do to make it better. First, could have given some scientists’ opinion on this discovery. Second, she could have expanded a little more on the topic. I never knew that scientists could allow blind people to basically read. I thought that that would be impossible. So, if scientists could do that, then what other extraordinary things could they do?
ReplyDeleteMy peer Mary Clare wrote a summary on the article “Blind patient reads words stimulated directly onto the retina”. She talks about many points that hare interesting three that I found alluding were, that it serves as the light at the end of the tunnel for all blind people who believed that regaining their sight was an insurmountable feat and can also lead to more discoveries in this field of research. The second fact I found intriguing was how the scientist had predicted that the blind person would read individual letters in less than a second with up to 89% accuracy. Lastly, One of these changes could have been a simplified explanation of the process with which these scientists accomplished the stimulation of braille. The things Mary could have changed were how she should have introduced the article in greater detail. The other things she could have fixed is how she explained the article. The summary was very vague. Other wise I loved how she explained to me how scientist may have found a fully functional was to help blind people see. Over it could have used some work but BRAVO MARY!!
ReplyDeleteI read Marry Clare’s review on the article “Blind Patient Reads Words Stimulated Directly onto the Retina.” Her review was well written and enjoyable to read. Marry used fantastic vocabulary to get her points across. She gave a good summary of the articles main topics and explained the process of allowing the blind the read brail. This helped me get more of a grasp on this topic and learn how it works on the blind. In addition, Marry used a good quote that made her review more interesting. Also she included a fascinating statistic about the patients being able to report back with 89% accuracy, which is a great development for the blind.
ReplyDeleteMarry Clare’s review was interesting but she made some mistakes that could be made to improve on to make her review better. One mistake she had was that she did not introduce her quotes and just threw it in her write up. I found this quote to be confusing and was not expecting it. Also, Marry could have done more research on this topic to provide some outside information and make her write up more fascinating.
Overall the review was done well and I found the topic she chose to be fascinating and the best part of her review.