Cited by 8Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringVisual perception and processing mechanismsTactile and Sensory Interactions

An actor-model framework for visual sensory encoding

Open access
Leong, Franklin, Rahmani, Babak, Psaltis, Demetri, Moser, Christophe, Ghezzi, Diego·2024·Nature Communications

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

A fundamental challenge in neuroengineering is determining a proper artificial input to a sensory system that yields the desired perception. In neuroprosthetics, this process is known as artificial sensory encoding, and it holds a crucial role in prosthetic devices restoring sensory perception in individuals with disabilities. For example, in visual prostheses, one key aspect of artificial image encoding is to downsample images captured by a camera to a size matching the number of inputs and resolution of the prosthesis. Here, we show that downsampling an image using the inherent computation of the retinal network yields better performance compared to learning-free downsampling methods. We have validated a learning-based approach (actor-model framework) that exploits the signal transformation from photoreceptors to retinal ganglion cells measured in explanted mouse retinas. The actor-model framework generates downsampled images eliciting a neuronal response in-silico and ex-vivo with higher neuronal reliability than the one produced by a learning-free approach. During the learning process, the actor network learns to optimize contrast and the kernel’s weights. This methodological approach might guide future artificial image encoding strategies for visual prostheses. Ultimately, this framework could be applicable for encoding strategies in other sensory prostheses such as cochlear or limb.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-024-45105-5

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • An actor model was developed to improve projection of high-resolution images into smaller resolution RCP arrays.

    “Also, an actor model was developed to improve projection high-resolution images into smaller resolution RCP arrays.98”

    From Visual Prostheses in the Era of Artificial Intelligence Technology (2025) · cites this paper as [98]

    The Results section (‘The actor-model framework in retinal processing’; page unavailable) says the authors developed an actor network that downsampled 128 × 128 images to 32 × 32 while preserving responses similar to those elicited by high-resolution images. It does not describe projecting those images into smaller-resolution ‘RCP arrays’; the reported projections were onto explanted mouse retinas. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • High-resolution images were projected into mouse retinas with a multielectrode array that detected neural spikes from RGCs in response to image projection.

    “High-resolution images were projected into mouse retinas with a multielectrode array that detected neural spikes from RGCs in response to image projection.”
  • A dataset was built and used to learn a supervised encoder improving reliability of the ex-vivo transmitted signal.

    “A dataset was built and used to learn a supervised encoder improving reliability of the ex-vivo transmitted signal.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 70 · Cited by 8

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [48]Rahmani, B., Psaltis, D. & Moser, C. Natural image synthesis for the retina with variational information bottleneck representation. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (2022). https://openreview.net/forum?id=FkPZGtTxXx6.

Authors
Leong, F., Rahmani, B., Psaltis, D., Moser, C., & Ghezzi, D.
Affiliations
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Hôpital Ophtalmique Jules-Gonin (CH)
Corresponding author
Ghezzi, Diego
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2024-01-27
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
808-808
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391277997
Cited by
8
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
retinal prosthesis, retinal ganglion cells, photoreceptors, contrast optimization, kernel learning, mouse retina, neuroprosthetics
MeSH terms
Animals, Learning, Retina, Retinal Ganglion Cells, Visual Perception, Reproducibility of Results, Mice, 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