Cited by 13Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringTactile and Sensory InteractionsVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Improvement in reading performance through training with simulated thalamic visual prostheses

Open access
Rassia, Katerina Eleonora K., Pezaris, John S.·2018·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Simulations of artificial vision are used to provide the researcher an opportunity to explore different aspects of visual prosthesis device design by observing subject performance on various tasks viewed through the simulation. Such studies typically use normal, sighted subjects to measure performance at a given point in time. Relatively few studies examine performance changes longitudinally to quantitatively assess the benefits from a training plan that would be akin to post-implantation rehabilitation. Here, we had six normal, sighted subjects use a standard reading task with daily practice over eight weeks to understand the effects of an intensive training schedule on adaptation to artificial sight. Subjects read 40 MNREAD-style sentences per session, with a new set each session, that were presented at five font sizes (logMAR 1.0–1.4) and through three center-weighted phosphene patterns (2,000, 1,000, 500 phosphenes). We found that subjects improved their reading accuracy across sessions, and that the training lead to an increase of reading speed that was equivalent to a doubling of available phosphenes. Most importantly, the hardest condition, while initially illegible, supported functional reading after training. Consistent with experience-driven neuroplastic changes, gaps in the training schedule lead to transient decreases in reading speed, but, surprisingly, not reading accuracy. Our findings contribute to our larger project of developing a thalamic visual prosthesis and to post-implant rehabilitation strategies.

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/s41598-018-31435-0

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Preliminary evidence suggests that gaze-contingent image processing can improve the functional and subjective quality of prosthetic vision.

    “While further research is required, there is some preliminary evidence that such a gaze-contingent image processing can improve the functional and subjective quality of prosthetic vision (Caspi et al., 2018; Paraskevoudi and Pezaris, 2021; Rassia and Pezaris, 2018; Titchener et al., 2018).”

    From Towards biologically plausible phosphene simulation for the differentiable optimization of visual cortical prostheses (2024) · cites this paper as Rassia and Pezaris, 2018

    The Discussion’s “Gaze Contingency” section says gaze compensation is expected to improve prosthesis performance and utility. The Discussion also reports improved reading accuracy and speed with training in a gaze-contingent simulation. But the study does not isolate the effect of gaze contingency from training or report improved subjective quality; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [23]World Health Organization. Global initiative for the elimination of avoidable blindness: Action plan 2006-2011. WHO Press, Geneva: Switzerland (2007).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rassia, K. E. K., & Pezaris, J. S.
Affiliations
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Pezaris, John S.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2018-11-05
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
16310-16310
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2899182696
Cited by
13
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 2
FWCI
0.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Fulbright Foundation in Greece
  • William M. Wood Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
reading achievement, visual training, reading speed, reading accuracy, neuroplasticity, MNREAD, font size, longitudinal training
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Reaction Time, Reading, Thalamus, Young Adult, 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