Amy Nau1, Michael Bach, Christopher Fisher. 1. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated whether existing ultra-low vision tests are suitable for measuring outcomes using sensory substitution. The BrainPort is a vision assist device coupling a live video feed with an electrotactile tongue display, allowing a user to gain information about their surroundings. METHODS: We enrolled 30 adult subjects (age range 22-74) divided into two groups. Our blind group included 24 subjects (n = 16 males and n = 8 females, average age 50) with light perception or worse vision. Our control group consisted of six subjects (n = 3 males, n = 3 females, average age 43) with healthy ocular status. All subjects performed 11 computer-based psychophysical tests from three programs: Basic Assessment of Light Motion, Basic Assessment of Grating Acuity, and the Freiburg Vision Test as well as a modified Tangent Screen. Assessments were performed at baseline and again using the BrainPort after 15 hours of training. RESULTS: Most tests could be used with the BrainPort. Mean success scores increased for all of our tests except contrast sensitivity. Increases were statistically significant for tests of light perception (8.27 ± 3.95 SE), time resolution (61.4% ± 3.14 SE), light localization (44.57% ± 3.58 SE), grating orientation (70.27% ± 4.64 SE), and white Tumbling E on a black background (2.49 logMAR ± 0.39 SE). Motion tests were limited by BrainPort resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Tactile-based sensory substitution devices are amenable to psychophysical assessments of vision, even though traditional visual pathways are circumvented. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This study is one of many that will need to be undertaken to achieve a common outcomes infrastructure for the field of artificial vision.
PURPOSE: We evaluated whether existing ultra-low vision tests are suitable for measuring outcomes using sensory substitution. The BrainPort is a vision assist device coupling a live video feed with an electrotactile tongue display, allowing a user to gain information about their surroundings. METHODS: We enrolled 30 adult subjects (age range 22-74) divided into two groups. Our blind group included 24 subjects (n = 16 males and n = 8 females, average age 50) with light perception or worse vision. Our control group consisted of six subjects (n = 3 males, n = 3 females, average age 43) with healthy ocular status. All subjects performed 11 computer-based psychophysical tests from three programs: Basic Assessment of Light Motion, Basic Assessment of Grating Acuity, and the Freiburg Vision Test as well as a modified Tangent Screen. Assessments were performed at baseline and again using the BrainPort after 15 hours of training. RESULTS: Most tests could be used with the BrainPort. Mean success scores increased for all of our tests except contrast sensitivity. Increases were statistically significant for tests of light perception (8.27 ± 3.95 SE), time resolution (61.4% ± 3.14 SE), light localization (44.57% ± 3.58 SE), grating orientation (70.27% ± 4.64 SE), and white Tumbling E on a black background (2.49 logMAR ± 0.39 SE). Motion tests were limited by BrainPort resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Tactile-based sensory substitution devices are amenable to psychophysical assessments of vision, even though traditional visual pathways are circumvented. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This study is one of many that will need to be undertaken to achieve a common outcomes infrastructure for the field of artificial vision.
Authors: Mark S Humayun; Jessy D Dorn; Lyndon da Cruz; Gislin Dagnelie; José-Alain Sahel; Paulo E Stanga; Artur V Cideciyan; Jacque L Duncan; Dean Eliott; Eugene Filley; Allen C Ho; Arturo Santos; Avinoam B Safran; Aries Arditi; Lucian V Del Priore; Robert J Greenberg Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 12.079
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: Matthew C Murphy; Amy C Nau; Christopher Fisher; Seong-Gi Kim; Joel S Schuman; Kevin C Chan Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Vincent K Lee; Amy C Nau; Charles Laymon; Kevin C Chan; Bedda L Rosario; Chris Fisher Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Lil Deverell; Denny Meyer; Bee Theng Lau; Abdullah Al Mahmud; Suku Sukunesan; Jahar Bhowmik; Almon Chai; Chris McCarthy; Pan Zheng; Andrew Pipingas; Fakir M Amirul Islam Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alejandro J Roman; Artur V Cideciyan; Rodrigo Matsui; Rebecca Sheplock; Sharon B Schwartz; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 2.209