Bionic eye review - An update.
Abstract
Purpose To date, reviews of bionic eye have concentrated on implants which were used in human trials in the developed countries. This is the main restriction of this systematic review examines, however this review discusses worldwide advances in retinal prosthetic research, assesses engineering features and clinical progress of recent implant trials, and identifies potential future research areas in the field of bionic implants.Methods A literature review searching PubMed, Google Scholar, and IEEExplore was performed using the PRISMA Guidelines for Systematic Review. We included peer-reviewed papers in the review which demonstrated progress in human or animal trials and papers with described innovative bionic eye engineering design. For each trial, a characteristic of the device, engineering solution, and latest clinical outcomes were presented.Results Eleven prosthetic projects fulfilled met our inclusion criteria and were ordered by stimulation location. Four have recently finished human trials, three are having conducted multi- or singlecenter human trials, and three are in preclinical animal testing stage. FDA has approved Argus II (FDA 2013, CE 2011); the Alpha-IMS (CE 2013) has been approved and obtained BCVA with Landolt-C test has taken into a multicenter clinical research. New approaches will be presented using alternating magnetic fields, low-intensity focused ultrasounds, optogenetics, implementing ionic gradients across neural cell membranes or influencing neurotransmitter levels will be presented in the review.Conclusion Several bionic eye have successfully achieved visual perception in animals and/or humans. However, many things need to be improved and engineering difficulties are to be resolved before bionic eye will be capable of fully and safely bring back vision functions. New approaches could improve medical outcome of future bionic eye.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Retinal prostheses are the most successful approach in the field of visual prostheses to date.
“Retinal prostheses are the most successful approach in this field to date (Nowik et al., 2020; Picaud and Sahel, 2020; Nanegrungsunk et al., 2022)”
From Toward a personalized closed-loop stimulation of the visual cortex: Advances and challenges (2022) · cites this paper as Nowik et al., 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 65 · Cited by 49
- Authors
- Nowik, K., Langwińska-Wośko, E., Skopiński, P., Nowik, K. E., & Szaflik, J. P.
- Affiliations
- SGH Warsaw School of Economics (PL)
- Medical University of Warsaw (PL)
- Corresponding author
- Nowik, Kamil
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-08
- Volume
- 78
- Pages
- 8-19
- ISSN
- 0967-5868 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3036285096
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 0.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Retinal Development and Disorders
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Keywords
- retinal prosthesis, Argus II, optogenetics, low-intensity focused ultrasound, neurotransmitter modulation, visual perception
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Humans, Retina, Vision, Ocular, Visual Perception, Visual Prosthesis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review