Georges Goetz1, Richard Smith2, Xin Lei3, Ludwig Galambos3, Theodore Kamins3, Keith Mathieson4, Alexander Sher2, Daniel Palanker5. 1. Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States 2Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States. 2. Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, United States. 3. Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States. 4. Institute of Photonics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom. 5. Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States 5Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the contrast sensitivity of a degenerate retina stimulated by a photovoltaic subretinal prosthesis, and assess the impact of low contrast sensitivity on transmission of visual information. METHODS: We measure ex vivo the full-field contrast sensitivity of healthy rat retina stimulated with white light, and the contrast sensitivity of degenerate rat retina stimulated with a subretinal prosthesis at frequencies exceeding flicker fusion (>20 Hz). Effects of eye movements on retinal ganglion cell (RGC) activity are simulated using a linear-nonlinear model of the retina. RESULTS: Retinal ganglion cells adapt to high frequency stimulation of constant intensity, and respond transiently to changes in illumination of the implant, exhibiting responses to ON-sets, OFF-sets, and both ON- and OFF-sets of light. The percentage of cells with an OFF response decreases with progression of the degeneration, indicating that OFF responses are likely mediated by photoreceptors. Prosthetic vision exhibits reduced contrast sensitivity and dynamic range, with 65% contrast changes required to elicit responses, as compared to the 3% (OFF) to 7% (ON) changes with visible light. The maximum number of action potentials elicited with prosthetic stimulation is at most half of its natural counterpart for the ON pathway. Our model predicts that for most visual scenes, contrast sensitivity of prosthetic vision is insufficient for triggering RGC activity by fixational eye movements. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast sensitivity of prosthetic vision is 10 times lower than normal, and dynamic range is two times below natural. Low contrast sensitivity and lack of OFF responses hamper delivery of visual information via a subretinal prosthesis.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the contrast sensitivity of a degenerate retina stimulated by a photovoltaic subretinal prosthesis, and assess the impact of low contrast sensitivity on transmission of visual information. METHODS: We measure ex vivo the full-field contrast sensitivity of healthy rat retina stimulated with white light, and the contrast sensitivity of degenerate rat retina stimulated with a subretinal prosthesis at frequencies exceeding flicker fusion (>20 Hz). Effects of eye movements on retinal ganglion cell (RGC) activity are simulated using a linear-nonlinear model of the retina. RESULTS: Retinal ganglion cells adapt to high frequency stimulation of constant intensity, and respond transiently to changes in illumination of the implant, exhibiting responses to ON-sets, OFF-sets, and both ON- and OFF-sets of light. The percentage of cells with an OFF response decreases with progression of the degeneration, indicating that OFF responses are likely mediated by photoreceptors. Prosthetic vision exhibits reduced contrast sensitivity and dynamic range, with 65% contrast changes required to elicit responses, as compared to the 3% (OFF) to 7% (ON) changes with visible light. The maximum number of action potentials elicited with prosthetic stimulation is at most half of its natural counterpart for the ON pathway. Our model predicts that for most visual scenes, contrast sensitivity of prosthetic vision is insufficient for triggering RGC activity by fixational eye movements. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast sensitivity of prosthetic vision is 10 times lower than normal, and dynamic range is two times below natural. Low contrast sensitivity and lack of OFF responses hamper delivery of visual information via a subretinal prosthesis.
Authors: J D Loudin; D M Simanovskii; K Vijayraghavan; C K Sramek; A F Butterwick; P Huie; G Y McLean; D V Palanker Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2007-02-26 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Peter H Li; Jeffrey L Gauthier; Max Schiff; Alexander Sher; Daniel Ahn; Greg D Field; Martin Greschner; Edward M Callaway; Alan M Litke; E J Chichilnisky Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Lauren H Jepson; Pawel Hottowy; Keith Mathieson; Deborah E Gunning; Wladyslaw Dabrowski; Alan M Litke; E J Chichilnisky Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2013-04-24 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Lauren E Grosberg; Karthik Ganesan; Georges A Goetz; Sasidhar S Madugula; Nandita Bhaskhar; Victoria Fan; Peter Li; Pawel Hottowy; Wladyslaw Dabrowski; Alexander Sher; Alan M Litke; Subhasish Mitra; E J Chichilnisky Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Elton Ho; Richard Smith; Georges Goetz; Xin Lei; Ludwig Galambos; Theodore I Kamins; James Harris; Keith Mathieson; Daniel Palanker; Alexander Sher Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 2.714