Light in visible spectrum is emitted by the contact lenses. There can be no optical focusing for that light. No image formation on the retina. That means the user may see that there is IR light somewhere around, possibly the general direction where it's coming from (left vs right), but that's all. No IR image, not even general shapes.
Yeah, the research is interesting, but the headline is, as usual, bs clickbait, also known as "false".
The article also mentions at the end that the contacts are only sensitive enough to detect IR emitted by an LED - they're not sensitive enough to "see" ambient IR. A far cry from "Contacts let you see in the dark with your eyes closed".
I noticed the same thing, and while the article comments on it, I suspect the comments may be inaccurate:
> Because the contact lenses have limited ability to capture fine details (due to their close proximity to the retina, which causes the converted light particles to scatter), the team also developed a wearable glass system using the same nanoparticle technology, which enabled participants to perceive higher-resolution infrared information.
No, putting the contact closer to the retina would improve imaging, because it would have less distance to scatter. Glasses will not fix this. A potential solution would be implanting these nanoparticles directly above the retina, but that's a significantly more invasive option than what's being described here.
You can also focus a pixel by guiding it through a narrow tube, basically cutting off any out-of-focus light. Maybe they use meta-materials to do it.
Several recent posts, think this one has the most discussion:
> In humans, the infrared contact lenses enabled participants to accurately detect flashing morse code-like signals and to perceive the direction of incoming infrared light. “It’s totally clear cut: without the contact lenses, the subject cannot see anything, but when they put them on, they can clearly see the flickering of the infrared light,” said Xue.
Sounds like promising tech but that’s not "seeing in the dark", yet.
I wonder if similarly-lackluster results could be achieved by special facepaint.
Kind of like how when you're camping, you can shield your eyes and still know where the campfire is.
Very cool but:
> Currently, the contact lenses are only able to detect infrared radiation projected from an LED light source, but the researchers are working to increase the nanoparticles’ sensitivity so that they can detect lower levels of infrared light.
> “There are many potential applications right away for this material. For example, flickering infrared light could be used to transmit information in security, rescue, encryption or anti-counterfeiting settings.”
Hmm
Good. I remember a certain video camera operating in the infrared fringe of the visible spectrum. You could see through light clothes. We do not want that again. At all.
All, or at least nearly all, digital camera sensors are sensitive in the IR. That's why most "normal" digital cameras have IR blocking filters. Security and astrophoto cameras have the filter removed. For astro there's also people who remove the filter manually[1].
[1]: https://camerasnipe.com/how-to-remove-the-ir-filter-from-a-d...
If it works then this is the product Bob Shaw described in A Wreath of Stars.
You do not "see" in the dark with these lenses in any meaningful way. They just light up in the visible spectrum when infrared light is shone on them.