May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Performance of visual tasks using an epiretinal prosthesis
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • D. Yanai
    Ophthalmology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Doheny Retina Institute,Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA
  • J.D. Weiland
    Ophthalmology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Doheny Retina Institute,Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA
  • M. Mahadevappa
    Ophthalmology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Doheny Retina Institute,Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA
  • R.J. Greenberg
    Second Sight, LLC, Sylmar, CA
  • R. Williamson
    Second Sight, LLC, Sylmar, CA
  • G.Y. Fujii
    Ophthalmology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Doheny Retina Institute,Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA
  • R. Freda
    Ophthalmology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Doheny Retina Institute,Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA
  • R. Lieberman
    University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
  • E. de Juan, Jr.
    Ophthalmology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Doheny Retina Institute,Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA
  • M.S. Humayun
    Ophthalmology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Doheny Retina Institute,Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  D. Yanai, None; J.D. Weiland, None; M. Mahadevappa, None; R.J. Greenberg, Second Sight, LLC E; R. Williamson, Second Sight, LLC E; G.Y. Fujii, None; R. Freda, None; R. Lieberman, None; E. de Juan, Jr., Second Sight, LLC I, P; M.S. Humayun, Second Sight, LLC I, P.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Second Sight, LLC
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 4181. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      D. Yanai, J.D. Weiland, M. Mahadevappa, R.J. Greenberg, R. Williamson, G.Y. Fujii, R. Freda, R. Lieberman, E. de Juan, Jr., M.S. Humayun; Performance of visual tasks using an epiretinal prosthesis . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):4181.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To measure the accuracy with which test subjects implanted with an epiretinal prosthesis can perform simple visual tasks. Methods: The FDA and USC–IRB approved the study protocol. Informed consent was obtained. Once the subjects met the qualifications in electrophysiological and psychophysical tests, a Second Sight epiretinal prosthesis was implanted in the worse eye. The intraocular component consists of 16 electrodes in a 4x4 distribution. Electrical stimulation was started between 7 and 15 days post–operative. The tests were divided in two categories: controlled tests (stimulus/patterns generated by computer) and camera tests (stimulus generated by a head mounted video camera). Using the computer interface different situations were simulated as: movements and position of the perceptions and orientation lines of electrodes (horizontal or vertical). Using the head mounted camera, tests were divided in camera still and camera scanning. Camera scanning results were also analyzed in two different situations: using single pixel (s–p) and using multi–pixel (m–p) resolution. Results: The results were significantly better than by chance. Computer controlled tests: sequential activation (4 alternative forced choice (AFC)) 70% (p< .001); orientation of lines of electrodes (2 AFC) 78% (p< .01); spatial location left/right (2 AFC) 75% (p< .01); spatial location up/down (2 AFC) 85% (p< .01). The patients also could recognize the direction of movements of a white bar in 59% (p< .01) in camera controlled tests. Comparing one vs. multi–pixel resolution, subjects required less time to provide a correct answer when multiple pixels were used (counting objects 27s, p< .0001; L position 80s, p< .0003) and a trend towards better performance when using multiple pixels (the number of pixels varied between subjects). One vs. multi–pixel: finding objects s–p=77%, m–p = 89% (p= .12); counting objects s–p=70%, m–p=80% (p= .12); objects recognition s–p=56%, m–p=68% (p= .13); L position s–p=59%, m–p=66% (p= .35). Conclusions: Test subjects with no better than light perception vision can perform simple visual tasks using an epiretinal prosthesis. An increased number of pixels and electrodes may produce better results and greater functionality.

Keywords: retina • retinitis • vitreoretinal surgery 
×
×

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.

×