Yvonne Hsu-Lin Luo1,2,3, Joe Jianjiang Zhong4, Lyndon da Cruz4,5. 1. Biomedical Research Centre, National Institute of Health Research, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 162 City Road, London, EC1V 2PD, UK. h.luo.96@cantab.net. 2. Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, 11-43 Bath Street, London, EC1V 9EL, UK. h.luo.96@cantab.net. 3. Vitreoretinal Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 162 City Road, London, EC1V 2PD, UK. h.luo.96@cantab.net. 4. Biomedical Research Centre, National Institute of Health Research, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 162 City Road, London, EC1V 2PD, UK. 5. Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, 11-43 Bath Street, London, EC1V 9EL, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Argus® II retinal prosthesis system has entered mainstream treatment for patients blind from Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP). We set out to evaluate the use of this system by blind subjects to achieve object localisation and prehension in 3-dimensional space. METHODS: This is a single-centre, prospective, internally-controlled case series involving 5 blind RP subjects who received the Argus® II implant. The subjects were instructed to visually locate, reach and grasp (i.e. prehension) a small white cuboid object placed at random locations on a black worktop. A flashing LED beacon was attached to the reaching index finger (as a finger marker) to assess the effect of enhanced finger visualisation on performance. Tasks were performed with the prosthesis switched "on" or "off" and with the finger marker switched "on" or "off". Forty-eight trials were performed per subject. Trajectory of each subject's hand movement during the task was recorded by a 3D motion-capture unit (Qualysis®, see supplementary video) and analysed using a MATLAB script. RESULT: Percentage of successful prehension±standard deviation was: 71.3 ± 27.1 % with prosthesis on and finger marker on; 77.5 ± 24.5 % with prosthesis on and finger marker off; 0.0 ± 0.0 % with prosthesis off and finger marker on, and 0.00 ± 0.00 % with prosthesis off and finger marker off. The finger marker did not have a significant effect on performance (P = 0.546 and 1, Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, with prosthesis on and off respectively). With prosthesis off, none of the subjects were able to visually locate the target object and no initiation of prehension was attempted. With prosthesis on, prehension was initiated on 82.5 % (range 59-100 %) of the trials with 89.0 % (range 66.7-100 %) achieving successful prehension. CONCLUSION: Argus® II subjects were able to achieve object localisation and prehension better with their prosthesis switched on than off.
BACKGROUND: The Argus® II retinal prosthesis system has entered mainstream treatment for patients blind from Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP). We set out to evaluate the use of this system by blind subjects to achieve object localisation and prehension in 3-dimensional space. METHODS: This is a single-centre, prospective, internally-controlled case series involving 5 blind RP subjects who received the Argus® II implant. The subjects were instructed to visually locate, reach and grasp (i.e. prehension) a small white cuboid object placed at random locations on a black worktop. A flashing LED beacon was attached to the reaching index finger (as a finger marker) to assess the effect of enhanced finger visualisation on performance. Tasks were performed with the prosthesis switched "on" or "off" and with the finger marker switched "on" or "off". Forty-eight trials were performed per subject. Trajectory of each subject's hand movement during the task was recorded by a 3D motion-capture unit (Qualysis®, see supplementary video) and analysed using a MATLAB script. RESULT: Percentage of successful prehension±standard deviation was: 71.3 ± 27.1 % with prosthesis on and finger marker on; 77.5 ± 24.5 % with prosthesis on and finger marker off; 0.0 ± 0.0 % with prosthesis off and finger marker on, and 0.00 ± 0.00 % with prosthesis off and finger marker off. The finger marker did not have a significant effect on performance (P = 0.546 and 1, Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, with prosthesis on and off respectively). With prosthesis off, none of the subjects were able to visually locate the target object and no initiation of prehension was attempted. With prosthesis on, prehension was initiated on 82.5 % (range 59-100 %) of the trials with 89.0 % (range 66.7-100 %) achieving successful prehension. CONCLUSION: Argus® II subjects were able to achieve object localisation and prehension better with their prosthesis switched on than off.
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: Jessy D Dorn; Ashish K Ahuja; Avi Caspi; Lyndon da Cruz; Gislin Dagnelie; Jose-Alain Sahel; Robert J Greenberg; Matthew J McMahon Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: A K Ahuja; J D Dorn; A Caspi; M J McMahon; G Dagnelie; L Dacruz; P Stanga; M S Humayun; R J Greenberg Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 4.638
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: Jasmina Cehajic-Kapetanovic; Mandeep S Singh; Eberhart Zrenner; Robert E MacLaren Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 25.671