April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Stability and Adaptation of Light Localization in Retinal Prosthesis Users with External Cameras
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Michael P Barry
    Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
  • Gislin Dagnelie
    Ophthalmology-Lions Vision Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Michael Barry, Second Sight Medical Products (F); Gislin Dagnelie, Second Sight Medical Products (C), Second Sight Medical Products (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 1817. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Michael P Barry, Gislin Dagnelie; Stability and Adaptation of Light Localization in Retinal Prosthesis Users with External Cameras. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):1817.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: Demonstrate stability of light localization abilities in subjects with retinal prostheses that use external cameras, and characterize adaptation of such localization when camera and implant representations are intentionally misaligned.

Methods: Three end-stage RP patients implanted with the Argus® II epiretinal prosthesis participated in this study. Participants touched a white square on a black background on a touchscreen monitor. Subjects were given auditory feedback including whether they were correct, and if not, the location of the target relative to the location touched. The distribution of errors was used to determine the accuracy and precision of light localization. Typical targets had sides spanning 5° of visual field. To demonstrate localization stability, captured images were digitally centered on the direction subjects associated with the stimulated area of the retina (aligned condition), and these settings were maintained for two months. Captured images were subsequently misaligned by 10-30°, and held at this setting for periods of 9-10 months to monitor adaptation. Statistical tests were based on bootstrap resampling of data.

Results: All subjects demonstrated accurate and stable target localization for over 1 month. Two subjects demonstrated stable localization for the entire 2 month period. Over periods of 7-8 months, with corrective auditory feedback, two subjects became more accurate at localization at rates of 0.03°-0.06°/day (p < 0.005), while one subject’s inaccurate localization remained unchanged. The rates of adaptation observed here are 8000 times slower than that seen in sighted subjects with prism glasses. When auditory feedback was removed, one subject who had demonstrated adaptation unlearned all corrections, while the other retained some adaptation without feedback.

Conclusions: These results demonstrate that the localization abilities of patients that use retinal prostheses with external cameras can remain stable over an extended period of time, although regular evaluation may be necessary to maintain accuracy. If a patient has a misaligned camera setting, accuracy can be improved with feedback; however, recalibration of the external camera may be necessary to provide persistent corrections to errors. Further experiments will be performed without auditory feedback to more thoroughly assess localization stability with both aligned and misaligned camera settings.

Keywords: 466 clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled clinical trials • 584 low vision • 579 learning  

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.