Henri Lorach1, Xin Lei2, Ludwig Galambos2, Theodore Kamins2, Keith Mathieson3, Roopa Dalal4, Philip Huie1, James Harris2, Daniel Palanker1. 1. Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States 2Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States. 2. Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States. 3. Institute of Photonics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prosthetic restoration of partial sensory loss leads to interactions between artificial and natural inputs. Ideally, the rehabilitation should allow perceptual fusion of the two modalities. Here we studied the interactions between normal and prosthetic vision in a rodent model of local retinal degeneration. METHODS: Implantation of a photovoltaic array in the subretinal space of normally sighted rats induced local degeneration of the photoreceptors above the chip, and the inner retinal neurons in this area were electrically stimulated by the photovoltaic implant powered by near-infrared (NIR) light. We studied prosthetic and natural visually evoked potentials (VEP) in response to simultaneous stimulation by NIR and visible light patterns. RESULTS: We demonstrate that electrical and natural VEPs summed linearly in the visual cortex, and both responses decreased under brighter ambient light. Responses to visible light flashes increased over 3 orders of magnitude of contrast (flash/background), while for electrical stimulation the contrast range was limited to 1 order of magnitude. The maximum amplitude of the prosthetic VEP was three times lower than the maximum response to a visible flash over the same area on the retina. CONCLUSIONS: Ambient light affects prosthetic responses, albeit much less than responses to visible stimuli. Prosthetic representation of contrast in the visual scene can be encoded, to a limited extent, by the appropriately calibrated stimulus intensity, which also depends on the ambient light conditions. Such calibration will be important for patients combining central prosthetic vision with natural peripheral sight, such as in age-related macular degeneration.
PURPOSE: Prosthetic restoration of partial sensory loss leads to interactions between artificial and natural inputs. Ideally, the rehabilitation should allow perceptual fusion of the two modalities. Here we studied the interactions between normal and prosthetic vision in a rodent model of local retinal degeneration. METHODS: Implantation of a photovoltaic array in the subretinal space of normally sighted rats induced local degeneration of the photoreceptors above the chip, and the inner retinal neurons in this area were electrically stimulated by the photovoltaic implant powered by near-infrared (NIR) light. We studied prosthetic and natural visually evoked potentials (VEP) in response to simultaneous stimulation by NIR and visible light patterns. RESULTS: We demonstrate that electrical and natural VEPs summed linearly in the visual cortex, and both responses decreased under brighter ambient light. Responses to visible light flashes increased over 3 orders of magnitude of contrast (flash/background), while for electrical stimulation the contrast range was limited to 1 order of magnitude. The maximum amplitude of the prosthetic VEP was three times lower than the maximum response to a visible flash over the same area on the retina. CONCLUSIONS: Ambient light affects prosthetic responses, albeit much less than responses to visible stimuli. Prosthetic representation of contrast in the visual scene can be encoded, to a limited extent, by the appropriately calibrated stimulus intensity, which also depends on the ambient light conditions. Such calibration will be important for patients combining central prosthetic vision with natural peripheral sight, such as in age-related macular degeneration.
Authors: Henri Lorach; Georges Goetz; Yossi Mandel; Xin Lei; Ludwig Galambos; Theodore I Kamins; Keith Mathieson; Philip Huie; Roopa Dalal; James S Harris; Daniel Palanker Journal: Vision Res Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Donald C Hood; Michael Bach; Mitchell Brigell; David Keating; Mineo Kondo; Jonathan S Lyons; Michael F Marmor; Daphne L McCulloch; Anja M Palmowski-Wolfe Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2011-10-30 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Henri Lorach; Jennifer Kung; Corinne Beier; Yossi Mandel; Roopa Dalal; Philip Huie; Jenny Wang; Seungjun Lee; Alexander Sher; Bryan William Jones; Daniel Palanker Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Katarina Stingl; Karl Ulrich Bartz-Schmidt; Dorothea Besch; Caroline K Chee; Charles L Cottriall; Florian Gekeler; Markus Groppe; Timothy L Jackson; Robert E MacLaren; Assen Koitschev; Akos Kusnyerik; James Neffendorf; Janos Nemeth; Mohamed Adheem Naser Naeem; Tobias Peters; James D Ramsden; Helmut Sachs; Andrew Simpson; Mandeep S Singh; Barbara Wilhelm; David Wong; Eberhart Zrenner Journal: Vision Res Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Brandon Bosse; Samir Damle; Abraham Akinin; Yi Jing; Dirk-Uwe Bartsch; Lingyun Cheng; Nicholas Oesch; Yu-Hwa Lo; Gert Cauwenberghs; William R Freeman Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Mahiul M K Muqit; Jean Pierre Hubschman; Serge Picaud; Douglas B McCreery; Jan C van Meurs; Ralf Hornig; Guillaume Buc; Martin Deterre; Céline Nouvel-Jaillard; Elodie Bouillet; Claire-Maelle Fovet; Philippe Hantraye; José Sahel; Joseph N Martel; Yannick Le Mer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 3.240