The response time of the human visual channel in a relatively quiet state is approximately 40 milliseconds, which provides a" frame rate " of 25 frames per second. At the same time, it is not just images once every 40 milliseconds, it is an average light perception over this period.

This is due to the fact that the image in the consciousness of animals is formed from a set of light flashes, which are fixed by the eyes and combined in the visual cortex into a complete image. People have an average of 60 flashes per second (24 frames ). The speed at which these images are processed is called "flash merge speed", a measure of how quickly you need to turn on and off the light to make it seem continuous. Tests have shown that the fastest flies respond up to 400 blinks per second! ( 6 times more than humans ) The Problem is that the fly's Eyes have evolved to perceive light through a set of tiny, string-like structures arranged horizontally along the path of light in the eye. These structures "mechanically" react to light, while in vertebrates they are " chemical ". Therefore, it is likely to use the following option for "imitation", a study of the vision of a small bird "Flycatcher Parsley" showed that they are able to distinguish the blinking of light in 146 times/

My question is: what modifications and improvements will improve perception ? ( for example, up to 200-300 frames per second )

I need only "biological" improvements (additions) of genetically modified (engineering) people. Therefore, no cyborgs, implants, magic and aliens. ( don't worry about improving the speed of processing information with your brain, I only need improvements to the visual system (eye))

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Starfish Prime Essentially: "you don't, use a computer instead" $\endgroup$ – Muuski Jan 10 '20 at 20:46
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Where do these numbers come from? Because I'm quite certain that humans can detect, recognise, and process more than 25 FPS on a computer monitor. In fact, it's been proven so many times. $\endgroup$ – VLAZ Jan 10 '20 at 21:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Nothing that you wrote about how human vision percieves motion is correct. $\endgroup$ – DrMcCleod Jan 11 '20 at 12:33
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ As a frequent video gamer & animator, those articles one might see online about only "seeing at 25/30 fps" are complete bullshit. $\endgroup$ – BMF Jan 12 '20 at 0:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think you're confusing reaction speed and human "motion" interpetation. Usually an image changing at ballpark 25 fps is enough to "trick" the human brain into believing that what they are seeing isn't still frames but rather contiguous movement. Anyone can tell the difference between a video at 30 and at 60 fps and if a ball or something flies past a human in less than 1/25 of a second, you can still see it (it doesn't become invisible). In fact, judging by what's used in VR, framerates of >100 are required to completely trick the human. Humans don't process time in 1/25 second increments $\endgroup$ – Dragongeek Jan 13 '20 at 18:22

One “simple” change you can make to humans, is to rotate the brain in the skull so the visual cortex is located at the front, greatly shortening the optical nerve from ~300 mm (depth of adult human head+length of optic nerve from eye to optic chasm) to ~50 mm (the length of the optic nerve from the eye to the optic chasm) enter image description here

This will let you increase the metabolic rate of the optic nerve by a factor of 6 without changing its energy consumption. Faster metabolic rates will mean faster signal transmission.

Then, you’ll need to increase the ratio of brisk visual ganglion to sluggish ganglion. The brisk cells can fire at rates up 1 burst/msec compared to the sluggish 100 msec burst rate. All this comes at a metabolic penalty since most of the visual information won’t change significantly, the eyes will be transmitting much the same images over and over again but consuming more energy

The brain will be inundated with stimuli, and to keep up its metabolic rate will need to increase.

So with “simple” physiological changes and costly metabolic changes you can increase your human’s visual perception rate.

  • $\begingroup$ Perfectly! That's what I need! $\endgroup$ – user71408 Jan 13 '20 at 17:37

One frequent scifi trope is enhancement of the adrenal system to amp up nerve conduction speed and lower reflex time. As someone who actually experiences a slow motion like effect when startled, I can attest to odd perception of time giving me more objective "cycles" to think about my reactions. Personally, this has happened during bicycle crashes and once when someone jumped me in Vegas.


The most obvious is to borrow a little from the "mechanics" of a fly's eye and adopt the theory for a human eye replacement.

Yes, I am talking Cyborgs here. A Go Pro camera can shoot at up to 240 fps, ten times the 24 fps you are talking about. It does this with a sensor that I might sonsider similar to a fly's more "mechanical" eye.

The Go Pro is tech that is out there, in the world right now. It's not a great stretch to take it forward in time a little. Once you master the interface into the optic nerve or even directly into the brain, you open up the possibility for cyborg eyes.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How do you make the visual cortex process that fast? $\endgroup$ – Muuski Jan 10 '20 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Muuski Same as Starfish Prime above. You don't, the computer handles that. It's an interesting problem in the realm of machine/brain interface. $\endgroup$ – Paul TIKI Jan 10 '20 at 20:59
  • $\begingroup$ I need only "biological" improvements (additions) of genetically modified (engineering) people. Therefore, no cyborgs, implants, magic and aliens. $\endgroup$ – user71408 Jan 11 '20 at 5:15
  • $\begingroup$ don't worry about improving the speed of processing information with your brain, I only need improvements to the visual system (eye) ' $\endgroup$ – user71408 Jan 11 '20 at 5:19
  • $\begingroup$ Is it possible to create a small segment of the human eye, like the iris, only at the edges of the eye, the device of which will resemble the above device of the eye of a fly? So that a person could speed up his perception of vision and see about it as a person. $\endgroup$ – user71408 Jan 11 '20 at 5:35

Technically we are Chemical Machines, ergo we are already cyborgs.

However if you want to improve the Eye, the first question is for what?

  • Frogs have great eyesight... for detecting worms. Not so great for determining the existence or even importance of say a Rocket.

  • Eagle eyes are great for detecting motion at extreme distances. Don't use them when 2km deep in the ocean...

What i mean is that Speed is great, but there needs to be an actual problem to solve. That is, what can the humans do with the extra 240 frames per second? Or is the Human just wasting energy?

Once you've decided what the need is, and what purpose the eyesight serves, go out and find all of the eyes that are actually good at solving that problem.

Now start to understand those biological systems. Understand what makes them good, and what their flaws are. See if changes in the genetic sequence are improvements, most won't be but a systematic program of forced evolution via human instigated genetic modification will provide some benefits.

Time to co-opt those biological systems. Perhaps you can grow the eyes and surgically implant them, along with some immuno-supressants. Alternately a retrovirus might be used on an adult, or a baby to adjust genetics with some varying results over time.

  • $\begingroup$ Well, what in this case should be the structure of the human eye so that it can see suppose 240 frames per second ( if this is too much, then how much can be the maximum?). Why do you need it at all? Difficult question, TK this is not the only thing that I want to improve in human vision, you said about the "telescopic" vision of the eagle, it will also be used once by me. $\endgroup$ – user71408 Jan 13 '20 at 8:23
  • $\begingroup$ @FrenchThompson To "see 240 FPS", you don't have to do anything? Even casual gamers show better reaction times as screen refresh rate change from 60 to 144 to 240hz, ref: youtu.be/OX31kZbAXsA?t=1838 $\endgroup$ – Spoki0 - Reinstate Monica Jan 13 '20 at 9:58
  • $\begingroup$ @FrenchThompson I imagine that the structure will follow from actual purpose. Again what are they trying to see/respond to. Humans already have very good sight for what our bodies can do. We can sense single photons of light, we avoid dynamic object motion instinctually, and can determine the how ripe fruit is at great distance. As for seeing at those higher speeds, not much. The bottle neck is the bandwidth from eye to brain. Its saturated. Perhaps make the individuals colour blind? Reduce resolution? That way there is bandwidth available to pump through more frames per second. $\endgroup$ – Kain0_0 Jan 13 '20 at 12:11
  • $\begingroup$ no, I need to preserve all the visual abilities of a person (it is desirable to improve them too, but this is after) I only need to speed up the perception of a person several times. (the fly perceives time faster than humans, so I need to achieve similar results) It is impossible to impair human vision, but at the same time improve the speed of perception of information, if you offer similar options, please talk about such problems. $\endgroup$ – user71408 Jan 13 '20 at 14:04
  • $\begingroup$ @FrenchThompson One simple change to make the eye better? Invert the chromatins in the retina so that the nerve comes out the back, not out the front. This will allow the removal of the blindspot, shorten overall nerve length, and allow for more chromatin per surface area. With appropriate adaptation of the primary processing layer on the back of the eye ball (duplication and offset integration) that can be used to kick perception speed up by a multiplier of 2x to 4x, or perception detail. $\endgroup$ – Kain0_0 Jan 13 '20 at 22:53

You just overclock them in the womb. Around 12 weeks old a foetus can be exposed to rapid flashing strobe lights, which tricks the brain into running in overclock mode.

You shine the strobe light at a frequency of 20hz, bright enough to penetrate the mother's abdomen, for about 4 hours per day. This way you can get the child to recognise 60 frames per second.

The only downside is that the child's brain ages three times as fast so you reduce the useful lifespan of the human by about 50%.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is there any scientific basis for this? $\endgroup$ – F1Krazy Jan 13 '20 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ This isn't a hard-science answer. You should back up your claims with evidence. $\endgroup$ – BMF Jan 13 '20 at 21:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BMFForMonica IMO, the OP of the question just doesn't know how to use the tag, and that's not really Geoff's fault. $\endgroup$ – F1Krazy Jan 13 '20 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ @F1Krazy I think at heart the OP wanted science-based answers. With all its figures, this answer sounds science-based, but it has nothing supporting it. $\endgroup$ – BMF Jan 13 '20 at 22:18

Your Answer
