May 2007
Volume 48, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2007
Pursuit Eye Movement Initiation and Accuracy Are Affected by Implant Location in Simulated Prosthetic Vision
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • L. Wang
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
  • L. Yang
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
  • D. Duval
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
  • G. Dagnelie
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships L. Wang, None; L. Yang, None; D. Duval, None; G. Dagnelie, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support NIH Grants EY007143-11, EY12843
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2007, Vol.48, 2565. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      L. Wang, L. Yang, D. Duval, G. Dagnelie; Pursuit Eye Movement Initiation and Accuracy Are Affected by Implant Location in Simulated Prosthetic Vision. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):2565.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose:
 

Pursuit eye movement (EM) is an important oculomotor function to be rehabilitated in prosthetic vision (PV). A retinal prosthesis may be implanted extrafoveally and is of low resolution. We investigated the effects of implant location on pursuit initiation and accuracy in simulated PV.

 
Methods:
 

PV was simulated as a grid of 10x10 dots. Each dot subtended visual angles of 0.94° x 0.92° with a Gaussian luminance profile. The PV covered a visual field of 9.4° x 9.2°, projected to a retinal area of the left eye via eye tracking. Two normally-sighted subjects (w51, w52) participated in the study. Ss were seated in front of a display and performed eye-tracking of a target moving horizontally from the central fixation point to the periphery and back at a constant velocity. Target movement direction and distance were randomized. Ss were required to press a button as soon as the target jumped. Each S performed the task in 4 viewing conditions: Normal vision, PV projected to the fovea, to 8° superior to fovea, and 8° right of fovea. Under each viewing condition, Ss tracked the target in two 40-trial sessions with target velocities of 4°/s and 8°/s, respectively. EM were assessed with initiation, measured by Latency defined as EM onset time minus target movement onset time, and accuracy, measured by horizontal Error defined as (Σ | eye position - target position |) / (Σ| target position |).

 
Results:
 

Ss showed (Table) longer mean Latency with PV than with normal vision (p<0.01) as well as larger mean Error (p<0.01). EM with the prosthesis implanted at 8° right of fovea had longest latency and greatest error. In PV conditions, EM showed saccade-like stepwise waveforms.

 
Conclusions:
 

The results suggest that PV’s lower spatial resolution and extrafoveal implantation may have addictive effects on pursuit EM initiation and accuracy. If extrafoveal implantation is necessary, a retinal location superior to the fovea appears preferable over a location lateral to the fovea.  

 
Keywords: retina • ocular motor control • low vision 
×
×

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.

×