PURPOSE: Since 2002, six blind patients have undergone implantation of an epiretinal 4 × 4 electrode array designed to directly stimulate the remaining cells of the retina after severe photoreceptor degeneration due to retinitis pigmentosa. This study was conducted to investigate how the brightness of percepts is affected by pulse timing across electrodes in two of these patients. METHODS: Subjects compared the perceived brightness of a standard stimulus (synchronous pulse trains presented across pairs of electrodes) to the perceived brightness of a test stimulus (pulse trains across the electrode pair phase shifted by 0.075, 0.375, 1.8, or 9 ms). The current amplitude necessary for each phase-shifted test stimulus to match the brightness of the standard was determined. RESULTS: Depending on the electrode pair, interactions between electrodes were either facilitatory (the perceived brightness produced by stimulating the pair of electrodes was greater than that produced by stimulating either electrode alone) or suppressive (the perceived brightness produced by stimulating the pair of electrodes was less than that produced by stimulating either electrode alone). The amount of interaction between electrodes decreased as a function of increased separation both in time (the phase-shift between pulse trains) and space (center-to-center distance between the electrode pair). CONCLUSIONS: For visual prostheses to represent visual scenes that are changing in both space and time requires the development of spatiotemporal models describing the effects of stimulation across multiple electrodes. During multielectrode stimulation, interactions between electrodes have a significant influence on subjective brightness that includes both facilitatory and suppressive effects, and these interactions can be described with a simple computational model. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00279500.).
PURPOSE: Since 2002, six blind patients have undergone implantation of an epiretinal 4 × 4 electrode array designed to directly stimulate the remaining cells of the retina after severe photoreceptor degeneration due to retinitis pigmentosa. This study was conducted to investigate how the brightness of percepts is affected by pulse timing across electrodes in two of these patients. METHODS: Subjects compared the perceived brightness of a standard stimulus (synchronous pulse trains presented across pairs of electrodes) to the perceived brightness of a test stimulus (pulse trains across the electrode pair phase shifted by 0.075, 0.375, 1.8, or 9 ms). The current amplitude necessary for each phase-shifted test stimulus to match the brightness of the standard was determined. RESULTS: Depending on the electrode pair, interactions between electrodes were either facilitatory (the perceived brightness produced by stimulating the pair of electrodes was greater than that produced by stimulating either electrode alone) or suppressive (the perceived brightness produced by stimulating the pair of electrodes was less than that produced by stimulating either electrode alone). The amount of interaction between electrodes decreased as a function of increased separation both in time (the phase-shift between pulse trains) and space (center-to-center distance between the electrode pair). CONCLUSIONS: For visual prostheses to represent visual scenes that are changing in both space and time requires the development of spatiotemporal models describing the effects of stimulation across multiple electrodes. During multielectrode stimulation, interactions between electrodes have a significant influence on subjective brightness that includes both facilitatory and suppressive effects, and these interactions can be described with a simple computational model. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00279500.).
Authors: J D Weiland; D Yanai; M Mahadevappa; R Williamson; B V Mech; G Y Fujii; J Little; R J Greenberg; E de Juan; M S Humayun Journal: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2004
Authors: Chris Sekirnjak; Pawel Hottowy; Alexander Sher; Wladyslaw Dabrowski; Alan M Litke; E J Chichilnisky Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2008-04-23 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Alan Horsager; Scott H Greenwald; James D Weiland; Mark S Humayun; Robert J Greenberg; Matthew J McMahon; Geoffrey M Boynton; Ione Fine Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-12-20 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Georg Nagel; Tanjef Szellas; Wolfram Huhn; Suneel Kateriya; Nona Adeishvili; Peter Berthold; Doris Ollig; Peter Hegemann; Ernst Bamberg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-11-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Devyani Nanduri; Ione Fine; Alan Horsager; Geoffrey M Boynton; Mark S Humayun; Robert J Greenberg; James D Weiland Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: M Mehdi Doroudchi; Kenneth P Greenberg; Jianwen Liu; Kimberly A Silka; Edward S Boyden; Jennifer A Lockridge; A Cyrus Arman; Ramesh Janani; Shannon E Boye; Sanford L Boye; Gabriel M Gordon; Benjamin C Matteo; Alapakkam P Sampath; William W Hauswirth; Alan Horsager Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2011-04-19 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: Lauren N Ayton; Joseph F Rizzo; Ian L Bailey; August Colenbrander; Gislin Dagnelie; Duane R Geruschat; Philip C Hessburg; Chris D McCarthy; Matthew A Petoe; Gary S Rubin; Philip R Troyk Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Andrew C Weitz; Devyani Nanduri; Matthew R Behrend; Alejandra Gonzalez-Calle; Robert J Greenberg; Mark S Humayun; Robert H Chow; James D Weiland Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Lauren N Ayton; Nick Barnes; Gislin Dagnelie; Takashi Fujikado; Georges Goetz; Ralf Hornig; Bryan W Jones; Mahiul M K Muqit; Daniel L Rathbun; Katarina Stingl; James D Weiland; Matthew A Petoe Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 3.708