Factors affecting perceptual thresholds in a suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 55, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 6467-6481

  Shivdasani, Mohit N ^a,b   Sinclair, Nicholas C ^a   Dimitrov, Peter N ^b   Varsamidis, Mary ^b   Ayton, Lauren N ^b   Luu, Chi D ^b   Perera, Thushara ^a   McDermott, Hugh J ^a,b   Blamey, Peter J ^a,b  

^a Bionics Institute   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Retinal prosthesis; Retinitis pigmentosa; Suprachoroidal; Threshold

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; ELECTRODE; ELECTRORETINOGRAPHY; ELECTROSTIMULATION; EYE FUNDUS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INCISION; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; PULSE POLARITY; RETINA HEMORRHAGE; RETINA IMAGE; RETINAL IMPLANT; RETINAL THICKNESS; RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA; SPECTRAL DOMAIN OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; STIMULUS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TONOMETRY; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS; VISUAL THRESHOLD; VISUAL THRESHOLD MEASUREMENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; MICROELECTRODE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSTHESIS; RETINA; SURGERY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISION; VISUAL CORTEX; VISUAL PROSTHESIS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MICROELECTRODES; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RETINA; RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL CORTEX; VISUAL PERCEPTION; VISUAL PROSTHESIS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84908102148     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.14-14396     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Brindley GS, Lewin WS. The sensations produced by electrical stimulation of the visual cortex. J Physiol. 1968;196:479–493.
2. Brindley GS, Lewin WS. The visual sensations produced by electrical stimulation of the medial occipital cortex. J Physiol. 1968;194:54P–55P.
3. Stronks HC, Dagnelie G. The functional performance of the Argus II retinal prosthesis. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013;11: 23–30.
4. Stingl K, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Besch D, et al. Artificial vision with wirelessly powered subretinal electronic implant alpha-IMS. Proc Biol Sci. 2013;280:20130077.
5. Dorn JD, Ahuja AK, Caspi A, et al. The detection of motion by blind subjects with the epiretinal 60-electrode (Argus II) retinal prosthesis. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;1–7.
6. Stingl K, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Gekeler F, Kusnyerik A, Sachs H, Zrenner E. Functional outcome in subretinal electronic implants depends on foveal eccentricity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:7658–7665.
7. Stingl K, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Besch D, et al. What can blind patients see in daily life with the subretinal alpha IMS implant? Current overview from the clinical trial in Tubingen [in German]. Ophthalmologe. 2012;109:136–141.
8. da Cruz L, Coley BF, Dorn J, et al. The Argus II epiretinal prosthesis system allows letter and word reading and longterm function in patients with profound vision loss. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:632–636.
9. Stingl K, Gekeler F, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Kogel A, Zrenner E, Gelisken F. Fluorescein angiographic findings in eyes of patients with a subretinal electronic implant. Curr Eye Res. 2013;38:588–596.
10. Gekeler F, Szurman P, Besch D, et al. Implantation and explantation of active subretinal visual prostheses using a combined transcutaneous and transchoroidal approach. Nova Acta Leopoldina NF 111. 2010;379:205–216.
11. Stingl K, Bach M, Bartz-Schmidt KU, et al. Safety and efficacy of subretinal visual implants in humans: methodological aspects. Clin Experiment Optom. 2013;96:4–13.
12. Saunders AL, Williams CE, Heriot W, et al. Development of a surgical procedure for implantation of a prototype suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis [published online ahead of print December 12, 2013]. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. doi:10. 1111/ceo.12287.
13. Villalobos J, Nayagam DAX, Allen PJ, et al. A wide-field suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis is stable and well tolerated following chronic implantation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013. In press.
14. Shepherd RK, Shivdasani MN, Nayagam DA, Williams CE, Blamey PJ. Visual prostheses for the blind. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;31:562–571.
15. Fujikado T, Kamei M, Sakaguchi H, et al. Testing of semichronically implanted retinal prosthesis by suprachoroidaltransretinal stimulation in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:4726–4733.
16. Ahuja AK, Yeoh J, Dorn JD, et al. Factors affecting perceptual threshold in Argus II retinal prosthesis subjects. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2013;2:1.
17. Zhou N, Xu L, Pfingst BE. Characteristics of detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels as a function of pulse rate in human cochlear implant users. Hear Res. 2012;284:25–32.
18. Horsager A, Greenwald SH, Weiland JD, et al. Predicting visual sensitivity in retinal prosthesis patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:1483–1491.
19. Cicione R, Shivdasani MN, Fallon JB, et al. Visual cortex responses to suprachoroidal electrical stimulation of the retina: effects of electrode return configuration. J Neural Eng. 2012;9:036009.
20. Shivdasani MN, Fallon JB, Luu CD, et al. Visual cortex responses to single- and simultaneous multiple-electrode stimulation of the retina: implications for retinal prostheses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:6291–6300.
21. John SE, Shivdasani MN, Williams CE, et al. Suprachoroidal electrical stimulation: effects of stimulus pulse parameters on visual cortical responses. J Neural Eng. 2013;10:056011.
22. Ayton LN, Apollo NV, Varsamidis M, Dimitrov PN, Guymer RH, Luu CD. Assessing residual visual function in severe vision loss. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:1332–1338.
23. Merrill DR, Bikson M, Jefferys JG. Electrical stimulation of excitable tissue: design of efficacious and safe protocols. J Neurosci Methods. 2005;141:171–198.
24. Shannon RV. A model of safe levels for electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1992;39:424–426.
25. Treutwein B. Adaptive psychophysical procedures. Vision Res. 1995;35:2503–2522.
26. Rizzo JF III, Wyatt J, Loewenstein J, Kelly S, Shire D. Methods and perceptual thresholds for short-term electrical stimulation of human retina with microelectrode arrays. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:5355–5361.
27. Keseru M, Feucht M, Bornfeld N, et al. Acute electrical stimulation of the human retina with an epiretinal electrode array. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90:e1–e8.
28. Yamauchi Y, Franco LM, Jackson DJ, et al. Comparison of electrically evoked cortical potential thresholds generated with subretinal or suprachoroidal placement of a microelectrode array in the rabbit. J Neural Eng. 2005;2:S48–S56.
29. de Balthasar C, Patel S, Roy A, et al. Factors affecting perceptual thresholds in epiretinal prostheses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:2303–2314.
30. Klauke S, Goertz M, Rein S, et al. Stimulation with a wireless intraocular epiretinal implant elicits visual percepts in blind humans: results from stimulation tests during the epiret3 prospective clinical trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52: 449–455.
31. Bierer JA, Middlebrooks JC. Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: dependence on electrode configuration. J Neurophysiol. 2002;87:478–492.
32. Morris DJ, Pfingst BE. Effects of electrode configuration and stimulus level on rate and level discrimination with cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2000;1:211–223.
33. Snyder RL, Middlebrooks JC, Bonham BH. Cochlear implant electrode configuration effects on activation threshold and tonotopic selectivity. Hear Res. 2008;235:23–38.
34. Busby PA, Whitford LA, Blamey PJ, Richardson LM, Clark GM. Pitch perception for different modes of stimulation using the cochlear multiple-electrode prosthesis. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 95:2658–2669.
35. Pfingst BE, Miller AL, Morris DJ, Zwolan TA, Spelman FA, Clopton BM. Effects of electrical current configuration on stimulus detection. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995; 166:127–131.
36. Pfingst BE, Morris DJ, Miller AL. Effects of electrode configuration on threshold functions for electrical stimulation of the cochlea. Hear Res. 1995;85:76–84.
37. Pfingst BE, Zwolan TA, Holloway LA. Effects of stimulus configuration on psychophysical operating levels and on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Hear Res. 1997; 112:247–260.
38. Bierer JA. Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;121:1642–1653.
39. Lovell NH, Dokos S, Preston P, et al. A retinal neuroprosthesis design based on simultaneous current injection. In: 3rd Annual International IEEE EMBS Special Topic Conference on Microtechnologies in Medicine and Biology. Hawaii; 2005: 98–101.
40. Wong YT, Chen SC, Seo JM, Morley JW, Lovell NH, Suaning GJ. Focal activation of the feline retina via a suprachoroidal electrode array. Vision Res. 2009;49:825–833.
41. Gerhardt M, Groeger G, Maccarthy N. Monopolar vs. bipolar subretinal stimulation-an in vitro study. J Neurosci Methods. 2011;199:26–34.
42. Bahmer A, Baumann U. Effects of electrical pulse polarity shape on intra cochlear neural responses in humans: triphasic pulses with cathodic second phase. Hear Res. 2013;306:123–130.
43. Shepherd RK, Javel E. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: II. Effect of stimulus waveshape on single fibre response properties. Hear Res. 1999;130:171–188.
44. Coste RL, Pfingst BE. Stimulus features affecting psychophysical detection thresholds for electrical stimulation of the cochlea. III. Pulse polarity. J Acoust Soc Am. 1996;99:3099–3108.
45. van Wieringen A, Macherey O, Carlyon RP, Deeks JM, Wouters J. Alternative pulse shapes in electrical hearing. Hear Res. 2008;242:154–163.
46. Macherey O, Carlyon RP, van Wieringen A, Deeks JM, Wouters J. Higher sensitivity of human auditory nerve fibers to positive electrical currents. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2008;9:241–251.
47. Undurraga JA, van Wieringen A, Carlyon RP, Macherey O, Wouters J. Polarity effects on neural responses of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve at different cochlear sites. Hear Res. 2010;269:146–161.
48. Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Rubinstein JT, Robinson BK, Matsuoka AJ, Woodworth G. Electrically evoked compound action potentials of guinea pig and cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation. Hear Res. 1998;119:142–154.
49. Jensen RJ, Rizzo JF III. Thresholds for activation of rabbit retinal ganglion cells with a subretinal electrode. Exp Eye Res. 2006;83:367–373.
50. Jensen RJ, Rizzo JF III, Ziv OR, Grumet A, Wyatt J. Thresholds for activation of rabbit retinal ganglion cells with an ultrafine, extracellular microelectrode. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44:3533–3543.
51. Jensen RJ, Ziv OR, Rizzo JF. Responses of rabbit retinal ganglion cells to electrical stimulation with an epiretinal electrode. J Neural Eng. 2005;2:S16–S21.
52. Ranck JB Jr. Which elements are excited in electrical stimulation of mammalian central nervous system: a review. Brain Res. 1975;98:417–440.
53. Yazdan-Shahmorad A, Kipke DR, Lehmkuhle MJ. Polarity of cortical electrical stimulation differentially affects neuronal activity of deep and superficial layers of rat motor cortex. Brain Stimul. 2011;4:228–241.
54. Carlyon RP, van Wieringen A, Deeks JM, Long CJ, Lyzenga J, Wouters J. Effect of inter-phase gap on the sensitivity of cochlear implant users to electrical stimulation. Hear Res. 2005;205:210–224.
55. McKay CM, Henshall KR. The perceptual effects of interphase gap duration in cochlear implant stimulation. Hear Res. 2003; 181:94–99.
56. Weitz AC, Behrend MR, Humayun MS, Chow RH, Weiland JD. Interphase gap decreases electrical stimulation threshold of retinal ganglion cells. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011; 2011:6725–6728.
57. Weitz AC, Behrend MR, Ahuja AK, et al. Interphase gap as a means to reduce electrical stimulation thresholds for epiretinal prostheses. J Neural Eng. 2014;11:016007.
58. Moon AK, Zwolan TA, Pfingst BE. Effects of phase duration on detection of electrical stimulation of the human cochlea. Hear Res. 1993;67:166–178.
59. McKay CM, Lim HH, Lenarz T. Temporal processing in the auditory system: insights from cochlear and auditory midbrain implantees. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2013;14:103–124.
60. Skinner MW, Holden LK, Holden TA, Demorest ME. Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant recipients’ thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;11:203–213.
61. Perez Fornos A, Sommerhalder J, da Cruz L, et al. Temporal properties of visual perception on electrical stimulation of the retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:2720–2731.
62. 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.
63. Fried S., Hsueh HA, Werblin FS. A method for generating precise temporal patterns of retinal spiking using prosthetic stimulation. J Neurophysiol. 2006;95:970–978.
64. Sekirnjak C, Hottowy P, Sher A, Dabrowski W, Litke AM, Chichilnisky EJ. Electrical stimulation of mammalian retinal ganglion cells with multielectrode arrays. J Neurophysiol. 2006;95:3311–3327.
65. Tsai D, Morley JW, Suaning GJ, Lovell NH. Direct activation and temporal response properties of rabbit retinal ganglion cells following subretinal stimulation. J Neurophysiol. 2009;102: 2982–2993.
66. Cai C, Ren Q, Desai NJ, Rizzo JF III, Fried SI. Response variability to high rates of electric stimulation in retinal ganglion cells. J Neurophysiol. 2011;106:153–162.
67. Cai C, Twyford P, Fried S. The response of retinal neurons to high-frequency stimulation. J Neural Eng. 2013;10:036009.
68. Watson AB. Temporal sensitivity. In: Boff K, Kaufman L, Thomas J, eds. Handbook of perception and human performance. New York: Wiley; 1986:1–43.
69. Gerken GM, Bhat VK, Hutchison-Clutter M. Auditory temporal integration and the power function model. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;88:767–778.
70. Moschos MM, Chatziralli IP, Verriopoulos G, Triglianos A, Ladas DS, Brouzas D. Correlation between optical coherence tomography and multifocal electroretinogram findings with visual acuity in retinitis pigmentosa. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7: 2073–2078.
71. Sugita T, Kondo M, Piao CH, Ito Y, Terasaki H. Correlation between macular volume and focal macular electroretinogram in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:3551–3558.
72. Shivdasani MN, Luu CD, Cicione R, et al. Evaluation of stimulus parameters and electrode geometry for an effective suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis. J Neural Eng. 2010;7:036008