Simulation of artificial vision, III: Do the spatial or temporal characteristics of stimulus pixelization really matter?

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 46, Issue 10, 2005, Pages 3906-3912

  Pérez Fornos, Angélica ^a   Sommerhalder, Jörg ^a   Rappaz, Benjamin ^a   Safran, Avinoam B ^a   Pelizzone, Marco ^a  

^a GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISION; VISUAL STIMULATION; BINOCULAR VISION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER SYSTEM; EYE MOVEMENT; PHYSIOLOGY; VISUAL PROSTHESIS;

ADULT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER SYSTEMS; EYE MOVEMENTS; EYE, ARTIFICIAL; HUMANS; READING; VISION, BINOCULAR;

EID: 32944457328     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.04-1173     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Rizzo JF, Wyatt J. Prospects for a visual prosthesis. Neuroscientist. 1997;3:251-262.
2. Normann RA, Maynard EM, Rousche PJ, Warren DJ. A neural interface for a cortical vision prosthesis. Vision Res. 1999;39: 2577-2587.
3. Dobelle WH. Artificial vision for the blind by connecting a television camera to the visual cortex. ASAIO J. 2000;46:3-9.
4. Zrenner E. Will retinal implants restore vision? Science. 2002;295: 1022-1025.
5. Humayun MS, Weiland JD, Fujil GY, et al. Visual perception in a blind subject with a chronic microelectronic retinal prosthesis. Vision Res. 2003;43:2573-2581.
6. Veraart C, Wanet-Defalque MC, Gerard B, Vanlierde A, Delbeke J. Pattern recognition with the optic nerve visual prosthesis. Artif Organs. 2003;27:996-1004.
7. Chow AY, Chow VY, Packo KH, Pollack JS, Peyman GA, Schuchard R. The artificial silicon retina microchip for the treatment of vision loss from retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:460-469.
8. Lecchi M, Marguerat A, Ionescu A, et al. Ganglion cells from chick retina display multiple functional nAChR subtypes. Neuroreport. 2004;15:307-311.
9. Linderholm P, Bertsch A, Renaud P. Resistivity probing of multilayered tissue phantoms using microelectrodes. Physiol Meas. 2004;25:645-658.
10. Ziegler D, Linderholm P, Mazza M, et al. An active microphotodiode array of oscillating pixels for retinal stimulation. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical. 2004;110:11-17.
11. Sommerhalder J, Oueghlani E, Bagnoud M, Leonards U, Safran AB, Pelizzone M. Simulation of artificial vision: I. Eccentric reading of isolated words, and perceptual learning. Vision Res. 2003;43:269-283.
12. Sommerhalder J, Rappaz B, de Haller R, Pérez Fornos A, Safran AB, Pelizzone M. Simulation of artificial vision: II. Eccentric reading of full-page text and the learning of this task. Vision Res. 2004;44: 1693-1706.
13. Weiland JD, Humayun MS, Dagnelie G, De Juan E, Greenberg RJ, Iliff NT. Understanding the origin of visual percepts elicited by electrical stimulation of the human retina. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1999;237:1007-1013.
14. Stett A, Barth W, Weiss S, Haemmerle H, Zrenner E. Electrical multisite stimulation of the isolated chicken retina. Vision Res. 2000;40:1785-1795.
15. Rizzo JF, Wyatt J, Loewenstein J, Kelly S, Shire D. Perceptual efficacy of electrical stimulation of human retina with a microelectrode array during short-term surgical trials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:5362-5369.
16. Harmon LD, Julesz B. Masking in visual recognition: effects of two-dimensional filtered noise. Science. 1973;180:1194-1197.
17. Bachmann T. Identification of spatially quantised tachistoscopic images of faces: how many pixels does it take to carry identity? Eur J Cogn Psychol. 1991;3:87-107.
18. Uttal WR, Baruch T, Allen LA parametric study of face recognition when image degradations are combined. Spat Vis. 1997;11:179-204.
19. Leeuwenberg E. Miracles of perception. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2003;114:379-396.
20. Bachmann T, Kahusk N. The effects of coarseness of quantisation, exposure duration, and selective spatial attention on the perception of spatially quantised ('blocked') visual images. Perception. 1997;26:1181-1196.
21. Lappin JS, Tadin D, Whittier EJ. Visual coherence of moving and stationary image changes. Vision Res. 2002;42:1523-1534.
22. Christie F, Bruce V. The role of dynamic information in the recognition of unfamiliar faces. Mem Cognit. 1998;26:780-790.
23. Lander K, Christie F, Bruce V. The role of movement in the recognition of famous faces. Mem Cognit. 1999;27:974-985.
24. Thornton IM, Kourtzi Z. A matching advantage for dynamic human faces. Perception. 2002;31:113-132.
25. Cha K, Horch KW, Normann RA. Mobility performance with a pixelized vision system. Vision Res. 1992;32:1367-1372.
26. Cha K, Horch KW, Normann RA, Boman DK. Reading speed with a pixelized vision system. J Opt Soc Am A. 1992;9:673-677.
27. Humayun MS. Intraocular retinal prosthesis. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2001;99:271-300.
28. Hayes JS, Yin VT, Piyathaisere D, Weiland JD, Humayun MS, Dagnelie G. Visually guided performance of simple tasks using simulated prosthetic vision. Artif Organs. 2003;27:1016-1028.
29. Thompson RW, Barnett GD, Humayun MS, Dagnelie G. Facial recognition using simulated prosthetic pixelized vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:5035-5042.
30. Studebaker GA. A "rationalized" arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res. 1985;28:455-462.
31. Costen NP, Parker DM, Craw I. Spatial content and spatial quantisation effects in face recognition. Perception. 1994;23:129-146.
32. Brummer SB, Robblee LS, Hambrecht FT. Criteria for selecting electrodes for electrical stimulation: theoretical and practical considerations. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1983;405:159-171.
33. Wolffsohn JS, Cochrane AL. The changing face of the visually impaired: the Kooyong low vision clinic's past, present, and future. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:747-754.
34. Hazel CA, Petre KL, Armstrong RA, Benson MT, Frost NA. Visual function and subjective quality of life compared in subjects with acquired macular disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41: 1309-1315.
35. McClure ME, Hart PM, Jackson AJ, Stevenson MR, Chakravarthy U. Macular degeneration: do conventional measurements of impaired visual function equate with visual disability? Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:244-250.