Cited by 166Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringTactile and Sensory InteractionsEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

A model for intracortical visual prosthesis research

Troyk, Philip, Bak, Martin, Berg, Joshua, Bradley, David, Cogan, Stuart, Erickson, Robert, Kufta, Conrad, McCreery, Douglas +2 more·2003·Artificial Organs

Abstract

In the field of visual prosthesis research, it has generally been held that animal models are limited to testing the safety of implantable hardware due to the inability of the animal to provide a linguistic report of perceptions. In contrast, vision scientists make extensive use of trained animal models to investigate the links between visual stimuli, neural activities, and perception. We describe an animal model for cortical visual prosthesis research in which novel animal psychophysical testing has been employed to compensate for the lack of a linguistic report. One hundred and fifty-two intracortical microelectrodes were chronically implanted in area V1 of a male macaque. Receptive field mapping was combined with eye-tracking to develop a reward-based training procedure. The animal was trained to use electrically induced point-flash percepts, called phosphenes, in performing a memory saccade task. It is our long-term goal to use this animal model to investigate stimulation strategies in developing a multichannel sensory cortical interface.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1525-1594.2003.07308.x

Cites

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?

  • Cortical visual prostheses currently do not allow for systematic control over phosphene brightness.

    “At this time, cortical visual prostheses do not allow for systematic control over phosphene brightness (Najarpour Foroushani et al., 2018; Troyk et al., 2003).”

    From End-to-end optimization of prosthetic vision (2022) · cites this paper as Troyk et al., 2003

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 166

Authors
Troyk, P., Bak, M., Berg, J., Bradley, D., Cogan, S., Erickson, R., Kufta, C., McCreery, D., Schmidt, E., & Towle, V.
Affiliations
  • Illinois Institute of Technology (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • EIC Laboratories (US)
  • Huntington Medical Research Institutes (US)
Corresponding author
Troyk, Philip
Venue
Artificial Organs
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-10-31
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
1005-1015
ISSN
  • 0160-564X (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1594
OpenAlex
W2086194837
Cited by
166
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Artificial Organs (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
animal models, macaque, area V1, intracortical microelectrodes, receptive field mapping, eye tracking, reward-based training, phosphenes, visual perception
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain Mapping, Electric Stimulation, Electrodes, Implanted, Macaca, Male, Memory, Microelectrodes, Phosphenes, Implants, Experimental, Models, Animal

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