Determining the Contribution of Retinotopic Discrimination to Localization Performance With a Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 58, Issue 7, 2017, Pages 3231-3239

  Petoe, Matthew A ^a,b   McCarthy, Chris D ^c,d   Shivdasani, Mohit N ^a,b   Sinclair, Nicholas C ^a,b   Scott, Adele F ^c   Ayton, Lauren N ^b,e   Barnes, Nick M ^c,f   Guymer, Robyn H ^b,e   Allen, Penelope J ^b,e   Blamey, Peter J ^a,b  

^a Bionic Vision Australia   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c CSIRO   (Australia)

^d SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^e CENTRE FOR EYE RESEARCH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^f AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

discrimination; localization; retinal prosthesis; retinitis pigmentosa; suprachoroidal

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; BINOCULAR VISION; BRAIN DEPTH STIMULATION; CASE REPORT; CHORIORETINOPATHY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; ELECTRORETINOGRAPHY; ELECTROSTIMULATION; FEMALE; FOURIER TRANSFORM; HEAD MOVEMENT; HUMAN; LOW VISION; MALE; OPTOGENETICS; PHOTORECEPTOR; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY; RELIABILITY; RETINA; RETINA FOVEA; RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISION; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL EVOKED POTENTIAL; VISUAL STIMULATION; VISUAL SYSTEM; BLINDNESS; COMPLICATION; ELECTRODE IMPLANT; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; VISUAL PROSTHESIS;

BLINDNESS; ELECTRODES, IMPLANTED; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FEMALE; HEAD MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL PROSTHESIS;

EID: 85024407410     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.16-21041     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. da Cruz L, Dorn JD, Humayun MS, et al. Five-year safety and performance results from the Argus II retinal prosthesis system clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:2248–2254.
2. Stingl K, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Besch D, et al. Subretinal visual implant Alpha IMS–clinical trial interim report. Vision Res. 2015;111:149–160.
3. Fujikado T, Kamei M, Sakaguchi H, et al. Clinical trial of chronic implantation of suprachoroidal-transretinal stimulation system for retinal prosthesis. Sensor Mater. 2012;24:181–187.
4. Sinclair NC, Shivdasani MN, Perera T, et al. The appearance of phosphenes elicited using a suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis: phosphenes of a suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57:4948–4961.
5. Dagnelie G. Psychophysical evaluation for visual prosthesis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2008;10:339–368.
6. Caspi A, Roy A, Dorn JD, Greenberg RJ. Retinotopic to spatiotopic mapping in blind patients implanted with the Argus II retinal prosthesis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017; 58:119–127.
7. Caspi A, Zivotofsky AZ. Assessing the utility of visual acuity measures in visual prostheses. Vision Res. 2015;108:77–84.
8. Caspi A, Dorn JD, McClure KH, Humayun MS, Greenberg RJ, McMahon MJ. Feasibility study of a retinal prosthesis. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:398–401.
9. Dorn JD, Ahuja AK, Caspi A, et al. The detection of motion by blind subjects with the epiretinal 60-electrode (Argus II) retinal prosthesis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131:183–189.
10. da Cruz L, Coley BF, Dorn J, et al. The Argus II epiretinal prosthesis system allows letter and word reading and long-term function in patients with profound vision loss. Brit J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:632–636.
11. Kotecha A, Zhong J, Stewart D, da Cruz L. The Argus II prosthesis facilitates reaching and grasping tasks: a case series. BMC Ophthalmol. 2014;14:1.
12. Ayton LN, Blamey PJ, Guymer RH, et al. First-in-human trial of a novel suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis. PLoS One. 2014;9: e115239.
13. 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.
14. Shivdasani MN, Sinclair NC, Dimitrov PN, et al. Factors affecting perceptual thresholds in a suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:6467–6481.
15. Slater KD, Sinclair NC, Nelson TS, Blamey PJ, McDermott HJ. neuroBi: a highly configurable neurostimulator for a retinal prosthesis and other applications. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2015;3:1–11.
16. Pérez 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.
17. 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.
18. Barnes N, Scott AF, Lieby P, et al. Vision function testing for a suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis: effects of image filtering. J Neural Eng. 2016;13:036013.
19. Bach M, Wilke M, Wilhelm B, Zrenner E, Wilke R. Basic quantitative assessment of visual performance in patients with very low vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51: 1255–1260.
20. Nau A, Bach M, Fisher C. Clinical tests of ultra-low vision used to evaluate rudimentary visual perceptions enabled by the BrainPort vision device. Trans Vis Sci Tech. 2013;2(3):1.
21. Bach M. The Freiburg visual acuity test - automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optometry Vision Sci. 1996; 73:49–53.
22. Lieberman HR, Pentland AP. Microcomputer-based estimation of psychophysical thresholds - the Best Pest. Behav Res Meth Instr. 1982;14:21–25.
23. Dunn OJ. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Techno-metrics. 1964;6:241–252.
24. Dacey DM, Petersen MR. Dendritic field size and morphology of midget and parasol ganglion-cells of the human retina. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992;89:9666–9670.
25. Ahuja AK, Behrend MR. The Argus (TM) II retinal prosthesis: factors affecting patient selection for implantation. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2013;36:1–23.
26. Dobelle WH, Turkel J, Henderson DC, Evans JR. Mapping projection of visual-field onto visual-cortex in man by direct electrical-stimulation. T Am Soc Art Int Org. 1978;24:15–17.
27. Dobelle WH, Turkel J, Henderson DC, Evans JR. Mapping the representation of the visual-field by electrical-stimulation of human visual-cortex. Am J Ophthalmol. 1979;88:727–735.
28. Sun JJ, Lu YL, Cao PJ, 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.
29. Geruschat DR, Richards TP, Arditi A, et al. An analysis of observer-rated functional vision in patients implanted with the Argus II retinal prosthesis system at three years. Clin Exp Optom. 2016;99:227–232.