The Problem with Capacitive Screens
I thought it'd be worth getting a discussion going about this since it's probably something many of us have thought about at one point or another.
The reason you can't just go implanting a touch screen as seen in certain movies (such as Total Recall), is that a capacitive touch screen works by measuring minuscule changes in a small electrical field generated by the screen, this determines where over the screen a finger (or other similar object) is located, capacitive buttons (as are becoming more common on set top boxes, DVD players, and TVs) work in a similar way to how an individual pixel on a capacitive "digitizer" built into a smartphone does.
The problem comes in that, even if calibrated properly to account for interference generated by flesh between the screen and a finger that may touch the skin above the screen, it would likely be very inaccurate, not able to determine very precisely where you were touching. That is, if it worked at all.
My solution to the potential problem is to measure nerve impulses triggered by contact on the surface of the skin.
My question (mostly to drive some discussion) is if anyone happens to know what it would take to measure said nerve input, obviously a single device implanted in a more central location that can monitor as many nerves as possible all at once, is preferable. However, also more difficult. I admit that I've not done extensive research on technology to measure nerve activity, but I thought I'd bring up the idea before necessarily knowing everything.
The reason you can't just go implanting a touch screen as seen in certain movies (such as Total Recall), is that a capacitive touch screen works by measuring minuscule changes in a small electrical field generated by the screen, this determines where over the screen a finger (or other similar object) is located, capacitive buttons (as are becoming more common on set top boxes, DVD players, and TVs) work in a similar way to how an individual pixel on a capacitive "digitizer" built into a smartphone does.
The problem comes in that, even if calibrated properly to account for interference generated by flesh between the screen and a finger that may touch the skin above the screen, it would likely be very inaccurate, not able to determine very precisely where you were touching. That is, if it worked at all.
My solution to the potential problem is to measure nerve impulses triggered by contact on the surface of the skin.
My question (mostly to drive some discussion) is if anyone happens to know what it would take to measure said nerve input, obviously a single device implanted in a more central location that can monitor as many nerves as possible all at once, is preferable. However, also more difficult. I admit that I've not done extensive research on technology to measure nerve activity, but I thought I'd bring up the idea before necessarily knowing everything.
Comments
As a side note, I'd do a non-touch screen implanted and some other means of controlling it any time. If it had practical purpose of course. I suppose the main problem is still powering it.