Cited by 258Tactile and Sensory InteractionsNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

Brain Plasticity: ‘Visual’ Acuity of Blind Persons via the Tongue

Sampaio, Eliana, Maris, Stéphane, Bach-y-Rita, Paul·2001·Brain Research

Abstract

The 'visual' acuity of blind persons perceiving information through a newly developed human-machine interface, with an array of electrical stimulators on the tongue, has been quantified using a standard Ophthalmological test (Snellen Tumbling E). Acuity without training averaged 20/860. This doubled with 9 h of training. The interface may lead to practical devices for persons with sensory loss such as blindness, and offers a means of exploring late brain plasticity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0006-8993(01)02667-1

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Participants reported that they located the objects in space rather than at the stimulation site, an example of externalization.

    “Interestingly, their participants reported that they located the objects in space rather than at the stimulation site, an example of externalization.”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Sampaio, Maris and Bach-y-Rita (2001)

  • Striem-Amit et al. (2012a) found participants performed better than in experiments with tactile SSDs and retinal prostheses.

    “Participants performed better than in experiments with tactile SSDs (Chebat et al., 2007, Sampaio et al., 2001), retinal prostheses (Zrenner et al., 2010) and 55% showed acuity higher than the threshold for blindness (see also Levy-Tzedek, Riemer, & Amedi, 2014).”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Sampaio et al., 2001

  • Sampaio, Maris and Bach-y-Rita (2001) found acuity, measured with a haptic rendering of a Snellen visual acuity chart with a tongue-based SSD, was 20/860 on average but doubled after 9 h of training.

    “Sampaio, Maris and Bach-y-Rita (2001) found that acuity, measured with a haptic rendering of a Snellen visual acuity chart with a tongue-based SSD was 20/860 on average but doubled after 9 h of training.”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Sampaio, Maris and Bach-y-Rita (2001)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sampaio, E., Maris, S., & Bach-y-Rita, P.
Affiliations
Université de Strasbourg (FR)
Corresponding author
Sampaio, Eliana
Venue
Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-07
Volume
908
Issue
2
Pages
204-207
ISSN
0006-8993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085075010
Cited by
258
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
neuroplasticity, visual acuity, blind people, human-machine interaction, tactile perception, sensory substitution, Snellen test, training effects, sensory impairment
MeSH terms
Adult, Electronic Data Processing, Blindness, Brain, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Humans, Neuronal Plasticity, Psychomotor Performance, Tongue, Touch, User-Computer Interface, Video Recording, Visual Acuity, Recovery of Function

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