Michael P Barry1, Gislin Dagnelie. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. mbarry11@jhu.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: We studied the capabilities of the Argus II retinal prosthesis for guiding fine hand movement, and demonstrated and quantified guidance improvement when using the device over when not using the device for progressively less predictable trajectories. METHODS: A total of 21 patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), remaining vision no more than bare light perception, and an implanted Argus II epiretinal prostheses used a touchscreen to trace white paths on black backgrounds. Sets of paths were divided into three categories: right-angle/single-turn, mixed-angle/single-turn, and mixed-angle/two-turn. Subjects trained on paths by using prosthetic vision and auditory feedback, and then were tested without auditory feedback, with and without prosthetic vision. Custom software recorded position and timing information for any contact that subjects made with the screen. The area between the correct path and the trace, and the elapsed time to trace a path were used to evaluate subject performance. RESULTS: For right-angle/single-turn sets, average tracing error was reduced by 63% and tracing time increased by 156% when using the prosthesis, relative to residual vision. With mixed-angle/single-turn sets, error was reduced by 53% and time to complete tracing increased by 184%. Prosthesis use decreased error by 38% and increased tracing time by 252% for paths that incorporated two turns. CONCLUSIONS: Use of an epiretinal visual prosthesis can allow RP patients with no more than bare light perception to guide fine hand movement visually. Further, prosthetic input tends to make subjects slower when performing tracing tasks, presumably reflecting greater effort. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01123928.)
PURPOSE: We studied the capabilities of the Argus II retinal prosthesis for guiding fine hand movement, and demonstrated and quantified guidance improvement when using the device over when not using the device for progressively less predictable trajectories. METHODS: A total of 21 patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), remaining vision no more than bare light perception, and an implanted Argus II epiretinal prostheses used a touchscreen to trace white paths on black backgrounds. Sets of paths were divided into three categories: right-angle/single-turn, mixed-angle/single-turn, and mixed-angle/two-turn. Subjects trained on paths by using prosthetic vision and auditory feedback, and then were tested without auditory feedback, with and without prosthetic vision. Custom software recorded position and timing information for any contact that subjects made with the screen. The area between the correct path and the trace, and the elapsed time to trace a path were used to evaluate subject performance. RESULTS: For right-angle/single-turn sets, average tracing error was reduced by 63% and tracing time increased by 156% when using the prosthesis, relative to residual vision. With mixed-angle/single-turn sets, error was reduced by 53% and time to complete tracing increased by 184%. Prosthesis use decreased error by 38% and increased tracing time by 252% for paths that incorporated two turns. CONCLUSIONS: Use of an epiretinal visual prosthesis can allow RPpatients with no more than bare light perception to guide fine hand movement visually. Further, prosthetic input tends to make subjects slower when performing tracing tasks, presumably reflecting greater effort. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01123928.)
Authors: Heval Benav; Karl U Bartz-Schmidt; Dorothea Besch; Anna Bruckmann; Florian Gekeler; Udo Greppmaier; Alex Harscher; Steffen Kibbel; Akos Kusnyerik; Tobias Peters; Helmut Sachs; Alfred Stett; Katarina Stingl; Barbara Wilhelm; Robert Wilke; Walter Wrobel; Eberhart Zrenner Journal: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2010
Authors: Douglas Yanai; James D Weiland; Manjunatha Mahadevappa; Robert J Greenberg; Ione Fine; Mark S Humayun Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-03-23 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Mark S Humayun; James D Weiland; Gildo Y Fujii; Robert Greenberg; Richard Williamson; Jim Little; Brian Mech; Valerie Cimmarusti; Gretchen Van Boemel; Gislin Dagnelie; Eugene de Juan Journal: Vision Res Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Mark S Humayun; Jessy D Dorn; Ashish K Ahuja; Avi Caspi; Eugene Filley; Gislin Dagnelie; Joël Salzmann; Arturo Santos; Jacque Duncan; Lyndon daCruz; Saddek Mohand-Said; Dean Eliott; Matthew J McMahon; Robert J Greenberg Journal: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2009
Authors: Eberhart Zrenner; Karl Ulrich Bartz-Schmidt; Heval Benav; Dorothea Besch; Anna Bruckmann; Veit-Peter Gabel; Florian Gekeler; Udo Greppmaier; Alex Harscher; Steffen Kibbel; Johannes Koch; Akos Kusnyerik; Tobias Peters; Katarina Stingl; Helmut Sachs; Alfred Stett; Peter Szurman; Barbara Wilhelm; Robert Wilke Journal: Proc Biol Sci Date: 2010-11-03 Impact factor: 5.349
Authors: Lauren H Jepson; Paweł Hottowy; Keith Mathieson; Deborah E Gunning; Władysław Dąbrowski; Alan M Litke; E J Chichilnisky Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Dayo O Adewole; Mijail D Serruya; James P Harris; Justin C Burrell; Dmitriy Petrov; H Isaac Chen; John A Wolf; D Kacy Cullen Journal: Crit Rev Biomed Eng Date: 2016
Authors: Lauren H Jepson; Pawel Hottowy; Geoffrey A Weiner; Władysław Dabrowski; Alan M Litke; E J Chichilnisky Journal: Neuron Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 17.173