Retinal implants: Emergence of a multidisciplinary field

Current Opinion in Neurology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 67-75

  Dagnelie, Gislin ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

biocompatibility; bionic eye; rehabilitation; retina; retinal implant; visual prosthesis

Indexed keywords

BIOCOMPATIBILITY; CLINICAL RESEARCH; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; NONHUMAN; REHABILITATION; RETINA; RETINA DEGENERATION; RETINAL PROSTHESIS; RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA; REVIEW; TISSUE ENGINEERING; VISUAL PROSTHESIS; VISUAL SYSTEM;

BLINDNESS; HUMANS; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; RETINA; RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA; VISUAL PATHWAYS;

EID: 84855686554     PISSN: 13507540     EISSN: 14736551     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e32834f02c3     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. Dagnelie G. Visual prosthetics 2006: assessment and expectations. Expert Rev Med Devices 2006; 3:315-325.
2. Humayun M. Intraocular retinal prosthesis. Tr Am Ophthalmol Soc 2001; 99:271-300. (Pubitemid 40525417)
3. Wang H, Peca J, Matsuzaki M, et al. High-speed mapping of synaptic connectivity using photostimulation in channelrhodopsin-2 transgenic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104:8143-8148. (Pubitemid 47185889)
4. Greenbaum E, Evans BR, ONeill HM, et al. Photonic interactions in biomolecular micro and nano systems. In: Program and Abstracts of the 2006 Biomolecular Micro and Nanosystems Conference; 2006:32.
5. Callaway EM, Katz LC. Photostimulation using caged glutamate reveals functional circuitry in living brain slices. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1993; 90:7661-7665. (Pubitemid 23250010)
6. Iezzi R, Finlayson P, Xu Y, Katragadda R. Microfluidic neurotransmitter-based neural interfaces for retinal prosthesis. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2009; 2009:4563-4565.
7. Weiland JD, Liu W, Humayun MS. Retinal prosthesis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2005; 7:361-401. (Pubitemid 41170192)
8. Benav H, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Besch D, et al. Restoration of useful vision up to letter recognition capabilities using subretinal microphotodiodes. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2010; 2010:5919-5922.
9. Palanker D, Vankov A, Huie P, Baccus S. Design of a high-resolution optoelectronic retinal prosthesis. J Neural Eng 2005; 2:S105-S120. (Pubitemid 41238014)
10. Weiland JD. Special issue containing contributions from the 39th Neural Interfaces Conference. J Neural Eng 2011; 8:040201.
11. Ray A, Lee EJ, Humayun MS, Weiland JD. Continuous electrical stimulation decreases retinal excitability but does not alter retinal morphology. J Neural Eng 2011; 8:045003.
12. Loudin J, Butterwick A, Huie P, PalankerD. Delivery of information and power to the implant, integration of the electrode array with the retina, and safety of chronic stimulation. In: Dagnelie G, editor. Visual prosthetics: physiology, bioengineering, rehabilitation. New York, NY: Springer; 2011. pp. 137-158.
13. Cela CJ, Lazzi G. Retinal cell excitation modeling. In: Dagnelie G, editors. Visual prosthetics: physiology, bioengineering, rehabilitation. New York, NY: Springer; 2011. pp. 159-172.
14. Troncoso XG, Macknik SL, Martinez-Conde S. Vision's first steps: anatomy, physiology, and perception in the retina, lateral geniculate nucleus, and early visual cortical areas. In: Dagnelie G, editor. Visual prosthetics: physiology, bioengineering, rehabilitation. New York, NY: Springer; 2011. pp. 23-58.
15. Jones BW, Kondo M, Terasaki H, et al. Retinal remodeling in the Tg P347L rabbit, a large-eye model of retinal degeneration. J Comp Neurol 2011; 519:2713-2733.
16. Greenbaum E, Evans BR. Synthetic chromophores and neural stimulation of the visual system. In: Dagnelie G. Visual prosthetics: physiology, bioengineering, rehabilitation. New York, NY: Springer; 2011. pp. 193-206.
17. Ong JM, Cruz LD. The bionic eye: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011. [Epub ahead of print]
18. Bittner AK, Diener-West M, Dagnelie G. Characteristics and possible visual consequences of photopsias as vision measures are reduced in retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:6370-6376.
19. Walter P, Roessler G. Findings from acute retinal stimulation in blind patients. In: Dagnelie G, editor. Visual prosthetics: physiology, bioengineering, rehabilitation. New York, NY: Springer; 2011. pp. 259-270.
20. Horsager A, Fine I. The perceptual effects of chronic retinal stimulation. In: Dagnelie G, editor. Visual prosthetics: physiology, bioengineering, rehabilitation. New York, NY: Springer; 2011. pp. 271-300.
21. Schneck ME, Dagnelie G: Prosthetic Vision Assessment. In: Dagnelie G, editor. Visual prosthetics: physiology, bioengineering, rehabilitation. New York, NY: Springer; 2011. pp. 385-412.
22. Normann RA, Greger B, House P, et al. Toward the development of a cortically based visual neuroprosthesis. J Neural Eng 2009; 6:035001.
23. Humayun MS, de Juan E Jr, Weiland JD, et al. Pattern electrical stimulation of the human retina. Vision Res 1999; 39:2569-2576. (Pubitemid 29197302)
24. Humayun MS, de Juan E Jr, Dagnelie G, et al. Visual perception elicited by electrical stimulation of retina in blind humans. Arch Ophthalmol 1996; 114:40-46. (Pubitemid 26026192)
25. Rizzo JF 3rd, Wyatt J, Loewenstein J, et al. 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. (Pubitemid 37475411)
26. Rizzo JF 3rd, Wyatt J, Loewenstein J, et al. Methods and perceptual thresholds for short-term electrical stimulation of human retina with microelectrode arrays. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44:5355-5361. (Pubitemid 37475410)
27. Humayun MS, Dorn JD, Ahuja AK, et al. Preliminary 6 month results from the ArgusTM II epiretinal prosthesis feasibility study. Conf Proc IEEE EngMed Biol Soc 2009; 1:4566-4568.
28. Humayun MS, Weiland JD, Fujii GY, et al. Visual perception in a blind subject with a chronic microelectronic retinal prosthesis. Vision Res 2003; 43:2573-2581. (Pubitemid 38367481)
29. Klauke S, Goertz M, Rein S, et al. Stimulation with a wireless intraocular epiretinal implant elicits visual percepts in blind humans. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:449-455.
30. Richard G, Keserue M, Hornig R, et al. Long-term stability of stimulation thresholds obtained from a human patient with a prototype of an epiretinal retina prosthesis [abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50:4580.
31. Roessler G, Laube T, Brockmann C, et al. Implantation and explantation of a wireless epiretinal retina implant device: observations during the EPIRET3 prospective clinical trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50:3003-3008.
32. Fujikado T, Kamei M, Sakaguchi H, et al. Testing of semichronically implanted retinal prosthesis by suprachoroidal-transretinal stimulation in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:4726-4733.
33. Ahuja AK, Dorn JD, Caspi A, et al. Blind subjects implanted with the Argus II retinal prosthesis are able to improve performance in a spatial-motor task. Br J Ophthalmol 2011; 95:539-543.
34. Humayun MS, da Cruz L, Dagnelie G, et al. Interim performance results from the Second Sight1 ArgusTM II Retinal Prosthesis Study. In: ARVO Annual Meeting, Ft. Lauderdale, FL; 2010; E-Abstract 2022.
35. Barry MP, Dagnelie G, Group AIS. Use of the ArgusTM II retinal prosthesis to improve visual guidance of fine hand motion. In: ARVO Annual Meeting, Ft. Lauderdale, FL; 2010; E-Abstract 3047.
36. da Cruz L, Coley B, Christopher P, et al. Patients blinded by outer retinal dystrophies are able to identify letters using the ArgusTM II Retinal Prosthesis System. In: ARVO Annual Meeting, Ft. Lauderdale, FL; 2010; E-Abstract 2023.
37. Zrenner E, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Benav H, et al. Subretinal electronic chips allow blind patients to read letters and combine them to words. Proc Biol Sci 2011; 278:1489-1497.
38. Santos A, Humayun MS, de Juan E Jr, et al. Preservation of the inner retina in retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115:511-515.
39. Marc RE, Jones BW, Anderson JR, et al. Neural reprogramming in retinal degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48:3364-3371. (Pubitemid 351261185)
40. Jurrus E, Paiva AR, Watanabe S, et al. Detection of neuron membranes in electron microscopy images using a serial neural network architecture. Med Image Anal 2010; 14:770-783.
41. Anderson JR, Jones BW, Watt CB, et al. Exploring the retinal connectome. Mol Vis 2011; 17:355-379.
42. Sekirnjak C, Hottowy P, Sher A, et al. High-resolution electrical stimulation of primate retina for epiretinal implant design. J Neurosci 2008; 28:4446-4456.
43. Abramian M, Lovell NH, Morley JW, et al. Activation of retinal ganglion cells following epiretinal electrical stimulation with hexagonally arranged bipolar electrodes. J Neural Eng 2011; 8:035004.
44. Goo YS, Ye JH, Lee S, et al. Retinal ganglion cell responses to voltage and current stimulation in wild-type and rd1 mouse retinas. J Neural Eng 2011; 8:035003.
45. Stronks HC, Dagnelie G, Barry MP, ArgusTM II Study Group. Electrically evoked electroretinograms of ArgusTM II retinal prosthesis wearers [abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:4969.
46. Villalobos J, Allen PJ, McCombe MF, et al. Development of a surgical approach for a wide-view suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis: evaluation of implantation trauma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011. [Epub ahead of print].
47. Morimoto T, Kamei M, Nishida K, et al. Chronic implantation of newly developed suprachoroidal-transretinal stimulation prosthesis in dogs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:6785-6792.
48. Kelly SK, Shire DB, Chen J, et al. A hermetic wireless subretinal neurostimulator for vision prostheses. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2011; 58:3197-3205.
49. Onnela N, Takeshita H, Kaiho Y, et al. Comparison of electrode materials for the use of retinal prosthesis. Biomed Mater Eng 2011; 21:83-97.
50. Kasi H, Hasenkamp W, Cosendai G, et al. Simulation of epiretinal prostheses: evaluation of geometrical factors affecting stimulation thresholds. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2011; 8:44.
51. Wilke RG, Moghadam GK, Lovell NH, et al. Electric crosstalk impairs spatial resolution of multielectrode arrays in retinal implants. J Neural Eng 2011; 8:046016.
52. Boinagrov D, Loudin J, Palanker D. Strength-duration relationship for extracellular neural stimulation: numerical and analytical models. J Neurophysiol 2010; 104:2236-2248.
53. Eckmiller R, Neumann D, Baruth O. Tunable retina encoders for retina implants: why and how. J Neural Eng 2005; 2:S91-S104. (Pubitemid 41238013)
54. Freeman DK, Rizzo JF 3rd, Fried SI. Encoding visual information in retinal ganglion cells with prosthetic stimulation. J Neural Eng 2011; 8:035005.
55. van Rheede JJ, Kennard C, Hicks SL. Simulating prosthetic vision: optimizing the information content of a limited visual display. J Vis 2010; 10:32, 1-15.
56. Zhao Y, Lu Y, Zhou C, et al. Chinese character recognition using simulated phosphene maps. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:3404-3412.
57. Fornos AP, Sommerhalder J, Pelizzone M. Reading with a simulated 60-channel implant. Front Neurosci 2011; 5:57.
58. Guo H, Wang Y, Yang Y, et al. Object recognition under distorted prosthetic vision. Artif Organs 2010; 34:846-856.
59. Lu Y, Fan J, Zhou C, et al. Estimating the position of simulated phosphenes using a tactile guide. Seeing Perceiving 2011; 24:125-140.
60. Lu Y, Chen P, Zhao Y, et al. Estimation of simulated phosphene size based on tactile perception. Artif Organs 2011. [Epub ahead of print]
61. Stronks HC, Dagnelie G. Phosphene mapping techniques for visual prostheses. In: Dagnelie G, editor. Visual prosthetics: physiology, bioengineering, rehabilitation. New York, NY: Springer; 2011. pp. 367-384.
62. de Balthasar C, Patel S, Roy A, et al. Factors affecting perceptual thresholds in epiretinal prostheses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49:2303-2314.
63. Greenwald SH, Horsager A, Humayun MS, et al. Brightness as a function of current amplitude in human retinal electrical stimulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50:5017-5025.
64. Horsager A, Greenwald SH, Weiland JD, et al. Predicting visual sensitivity in retinal prosthesis patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50:1483-1491.
65. Horsager A, Boynton GM, Greenberg RJ, Fine I. Temporal interactions during paired-electrode stimulation in two retinal prosthesis subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:549-557.
66. Roessler G, Laube T, Brockmann C, et al. Angiographic findings following tack fixation of a wireless epiretinal retina implant device in blind RP patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011; 249:1281-1286.
67. Velikay-Parel M, Ivastinovic D, Georgi T, et al. Perceptual threshold and neuronal excitability as long-term safety evaluation in retinal implants [abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:2590.
68. Velikay-Parel M, Ivastinovic D, Koch M, et al. Repeated mobility testing for later artificial visual function evaluation. J Neural Eng 2007; 4:S102-S107. (Pubitemid 46357453)
69. Tamaki M, Matsuo T. Optical coherence tomographic parameters as objective signs for visual acuity in patients with retinitis pigmentosa, future candidates for retinal prostheses. J Artif Organs 2011; 14:140-150.
70. Lane FJ, Huyck MH, Troyk P. Looking ahead: planning for the first human intracortical visual prosthesis by using pilot data from focus groups of potential users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011; 6:139-147.
71. Xia Y, Ren Q. Preoperative candidate evaluations for retinal prosthesis trials. Int J Artif Organs 2011; 33:844-850.
72. Geruschat DR, Deremeik J. Activities of daily living and rehabilitation with prosthetic vision. In: Dagnelie G, editor. Visual prosthetics: physiology, bioengineering, rehabilitation. New York, NY: Springer; 2011. pp. 413-424.
73. Dagnelie G. Psychophysical evaluation for visual prosthesis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2008; 10:339-368.
74. Cohen ED. Safety and effectiveness considerations for clinical studies of visual prosthetic devices. J Neural Eng 2007; 4:S124-S129. (Pubitemid 46357454)
75. Sun J, Lu Y, Cao P, et al. Spatiotemporal properties of multipeaked electrically evoked potentials elicited by penetrative optic nerve stimulation in rabbits. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:146-154.
76. Torab K, Davis TS, Warren DJ, et al. Multiple factors may influence the performance of a visual prosthesis based on intracortical microstimulation: nonhuman primate behavioural experimentation. J Neural Eng 2011; 8:035001.
77. Troyk P, Bak M, Berg J, et al. A model for intracortical visual prosthesis research. Artif Organs 2003; 27:1005-1015. (Pubitemid 37414239)
78. Tani N, Hirata M, Motoki Y, et al. Quantitative analysis of phosphenes induced by navigation-guided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Stimul 2011; 4:28-37.
79. Cosetti MK, Waltzman SB. Cochlear implants: current status and future potential. Expert Rev Med Devices 2011; 8:389-401.