July 2018
Volume 59, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2018
Eye orientation trends match pointing errors in simultaneous eye tracking and target localization with retinal prostheses
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Michael P Barry
    Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
    Ophthal-Lions Vision Cntr, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Arup Roy
    Second Sight Medical Products, Inc., Sylmar, California, United States
  • Varalakshmi Wuyyuru
    Second Sight Medical Products, Inc., Sylmar, California, United States
  • Paul E Rosendall
    Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, Maryland, United States
  • Jason Harper
    Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, Maryland, United States
  • Kapil D Katyal
    Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, Maryland, United States
  • Avi Caspi
    Jerusalem College of Technology, Jerusalem, Israel
    Second Sight Medical Products, Inc., Sylmar, California, United States
  • Gislin Dagnelie
    Ophthal-Lions Vision Cntr, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Robert Jay Greenberg
    Second Sight Medical Products, Inc., Sylmar, California, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Michael Barry, Second Sight Medical Products (F), Second Sight Medical Products (P); Arup Roy, Second Sight Medical Products (E), Second Sight Medical Products (I); Varalakshmi Wuyyuru, Second Sight Medical Products (E), Second Sight Medical Products (I); Paul Rosendall, None; Jason Harper, None; Kapil Katyal, None; Avi Caspi, Second Sight Medical Products (C), Second Sight Medical Products (P); Gislin Dagnelie, Second Sight Medical Products (C), Second Sight Medical Products (P); Robert Greenberg, Second Sight Medical Products (E), Second Sight Medical Products (I), Second Sight Medical Products (P)
  • Footnotes
    Support  NEI grant T32 EY007143
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2018, Vol.59, 3892. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Michael P Barry, Arup Roy, Varalakshmi Wuyyuru, Paul E Rosendall, Jason Harper, Kapil D Katyal, Avi Caspi, Gislin Dagnelie, Robert Jay Greenberg; Eye orientation trends match pointing errors in simultaneous eye tracking and target localization with retinal prostheses. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):3892.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Determine whether simultaneous eye tracking and target localization can support the link between hand-camera coordination shifts and eye orientations (EOs).

Methods : Three Argus II retinal prosthesis users touched single, randomly-located 7°-wide white targets on an otherwise black touchscreen. Argus II glasses were replaced with eye-tracking glasses. Any 18° × 11° area within the scene camera’s 73° × 55° field of view (FOV) could be used for retinal stimulation. This area was either fixed to one point in the camera’s FOV (head-only scanning, HOS), or adjusted based on EO (eye-head scanning, EHS). Each subject performed 5 or 6 runs of 20 trials, with at least 2 runs per condition. An inertial measurement unit monitored head motion during tests.

Linear models were calculated for localization errors and EOs with respect to time within each trial run. Differences in direction between vectors for errors and EOs were calculated for each run. Correlation significance and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined using bootstrap resampling, and Watson’s test was used for circular uniformity.

Results : The time when the target was viewed was not recorded, so EO trends were based on readings only from the first 0.5s of each trial. The correlation between head angular velocity and EO velocity was 20% less negative within the first 0.5s than all other 0.5s periods (p < 0.0006), suggesting less influence of the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). For HOS, error and EO trend directions were significantly correlated (p < 0.04) and direction differences were biased toward a mean of −10° (p < 0.05, CI: −49°–23°). Directions with EHS were not positively correlated and differences were not significantly nonuniform. When considering all EO readings, however, direction differences with EHS were biased toward a mean of 0.3° (p < 0.05, CI: −30°–64°). Errors with EHS scanning changed at 0.02°/s, while errors shifted at 0.04°/s with HOS (p < 5 × 10-6).

Conclusions : Average EOs, not considering VOR, shifted in the same directions as localization errors within HOS trial runs, and EHS reduced rates of error change. EHS may therefore be useful for reducing long-term hand-camera coordination shifts. Overall EO changes still matched error changes in EHS, likely because pointing bias was still influenced by gazes outside the camera FOV and the side on which the 7° target was viewed.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.

×
×

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.

×