The DOI matches its Crossref record; 223 of the 223 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 7 of the 185 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges
Open accessAbstract
Vision is an extraordinary sense through which we can appreciate the beauty of the world we live in, gain invaluable knowledge and communicate with others using visual expression and arts. On the contrary, blindness is a threatening medical condition disrupting the life of affected people and their families. Therefore, restoring sight is one of the open challenges of our society. Today, the synergistic convergence of science and technology holds the potential to provide blind patients with artificial vision using visual prostheses: a type of implantable medical device able to reactivate visual neurons using electrical stimulation. Although clinical trials showed that vision restoration is still far away, significant technological advances make visual prostheses a valuable solution for blind patients. This review is not only a description of the state-of-the-art. Instead, it provides the reader with an update on recent developments, a critical discussion of the open challenges, and an overview of promising future directions.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review synthesizes engineering and biological challenges of visual prostheses across the retina, optic nerve, LGN, and V1, noting that retinal implants are the most clinically advanced but still provide vision substitution rather than full restoration. It highlights quantitative limits in visual field and resolution, electrode–tissue interface issues, image encoding, wireless power, biological variability, and market/regulatory lessons from first-generation devices.
Key findings
- Visual prostheses are classified by target along the visual pathway: retina, optic nerve, LGN, and V1. Only retinal prostheses have reached clinical approval, and only for retinitis pigmentosa (RP): Argus® II, IRIS® II, and Alpha IMS/AMS; none remain on the market.
- Best reported visual acuities were 20/460 with the subretinal PRIMA implant in AMD patients and 20/546 with the subretinal Alpha-AMS in RP patients. Grating acuities ranged from 20/1260 with the epiretinal Argus® II to 20/364 with the subretinal Alpha-AMS.
- A visual angle of 30°–35° was identified as the minimal requirement for mobility and daily tasks under simulated prosthetic vision. POLYRETINA is described as a high-density wide-field epiretinal prosthesis with 10,498 photovoltaic pixels over approximately 43° (about 140 mm²).
- Temporal limits include phosphene fading; flicker fusion (30 Hz or above) was achieved only for the PRIMA device in AMD patients. Market challenges include RP affecting about 1.5–2 million people, but only 12% having visual acuity worse than counting fingers and 0.5% having no light perception; Argus® II cost 115,000 EUR in Europe to 150,000 USD in the USA, with one patient estimating total device, surgery, and rehabilitation costs at 497,000 USD.
Methods
- Narrative review; the paper states that no new data were created or analysed.
- Synthesizes literature on the visual system, device categories by anatomical target, clinical and preclinical trials, and quantitative, technological, biological, and market/regulatory challenges.
- No systematic search strategy, inclusion criteria, or quantitative meta-analysis is described.
Limitations
- The paper does not include a formal limitations section; as a narrative review, it lacks systematic search/selection criteria and quantitative synthesis (evident from the text).
- The authors state key knowledge gaps: insufficient understanding of the neural visual code in blind individuals, unclear predictiveness of animal models, and variable retinal remodelling and plasticity across patients.
- Evident from the text: many cited outcomes come from heterogeneous, device-specific clinical and preclinical reports, and first-generation approved retinal prostheses were discontinued, limiting long-term generalizability and patient support.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
113 Not checked yet · 34 Own interpretation · 27 No basis given · 4 Partly supported · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Indeed, researchers demonstrated that visual perception and performance in solving visual tasks could improve with learning and time [20,98].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.4. Cortical prostheses
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [20] Fernandez, 2018, Development of visual neuroprostheses: trends and challenges, Bioelectron. Med. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (Fig. 1 caption; no page number in our copy) says neural plasticity can improve perceptions of prosthetic vision and that learning and rehabilitation will help. The “Delivering of information to implants” section reports enhanced performance in a non-human primate model, but attributes it to eye movements. The paper does not report a demonstrated improvement in visual-task performance with learning over time. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [98] Beauchamp, 2020, Dynamic stimulation of visual cortex produces form vision in sighted and blind humans, Cell sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion’s ‘Quantitative comparison with previous studies’ section says participants can learn to associate phosphene patterns with letters, supporting a role for learning in a specific visual-recognition task. It does not report that visual perception or task performance improved over time. The Discussion instead says participants immediately identified forms produced by dynamic stimulation without training. (LLM, conf=0.77)
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“So far, there have been very few preclinical studies in animals conducted to test the stimulation efficacy [81,83,84].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.3. Thalamic prostheses
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [81] Pezaris, 2007, Demonstration of artificial visual percepts generated through thalamic microstimulation, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. source
The Abstract describes an experiment in alert monkeys testing whether LGN electrical stimulation creates visual percepts. The Results report 56 experiments in two adult monkeys, so this paper is an example of the animal studies cited in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites [83] Choi, 2014, Lateral geniculate body evoked potentials elicited by visual and electrical stimulation, Korean J. Ophthalmol. source
The paper says relatively little is known about LGB stimulation because surgical access is difficult. Its Materials and Methods describe a pig experiment investigating the feasibility of electrical stimulation for a visual prosthesis, and the introductory passage identifies a prior monkey study. Together, these support the broad statement that animal studies testing this approach have been scarce. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked yetcites [84] Tangutooru, 2014, Early design considerations for a thalamic visual prosthesis to treat blindness resulting from glaucoma source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A cortical prosthesis offers the advantage of artificial vision in most conditions of blindness, excluding traumatic brain injuries and stroke [7].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.4. Cortical prostheses
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [7] Mirochnik, 2019, Contemporary approaches to visual prostheses, Mil. Med. Res. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Visual cortex section says cortical prostheses are applicable to all forms of blindness other than cortical injury or stroke. This supports the broad applicability and stroke exception, but the claim replaces the paper’s narrower exception of cortical injury with traumatic brain injury, which the passage does not equate with cortical injury. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In animal studies, researchers have found that stimulation activates interconnected neurons distant from the electrode, even at low currents [145].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.2. Spatial resolution
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [145] Histed, 2009, Direct activation of sparse, distributed populations of cortical neurons by electrical microstimulation, Neuron sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that near-threshold stimulation activates a sparse, widely distributed set of neuronal cell bodies, including cells distant from the electrode. It does not establish that those distant cells are interconnected; its discussion of activation in connected partners is an inference and describes only a small number of spikes. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Photovoltaic retinal prostheses [48] were the first example of neurostimulation devices providing fully wireless electrical stimulation to the nervous system without the need for implantable batteries or active electronic units.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 6. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [48] Palanker, 2020, Photovoltaic restoration of central vision in atrophic age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction’s PRIMA system section describes a wireless prosthesis whose photovoltaic pixels convert projected light into current that stimulates retinal neurons. It does not establish that photovoltaic retinal prostheses were the first neurostimulation devices to do this, or explicitly state that the implant has no battery or active electronic units. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, they can offer artificial vision only to blind patients with outer retinal diseases, causing the progressive loss of retinal photoreceptors.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.1. Retinal prostheses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Visual prostheses bypass the damaged segment of the visual path and electrically stimulate the downstream surviving visual neurons to induce artificial vision.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The device position (epiretinal, subretinal or suprachoroidal) and the characteristics of the electrical pulses (such as duration and waveform) determine which cell population is predominantly activated [28,29].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.1. Retinal prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Boinagrov, 2014, Selectivity of direct and network-mediated stimulation of the retinal ganglion cells with epi-, sub- and intraretinal electrodes, J. Neural Eng. source
- Not checked yetcites [29] Chenais, 2019, Capacitive-like photovoltaic epiretinal stimulation enhances and narrows the network-mediated activity of retinal ganglion cells by recruiting the lateral inhibitory network, J. Neural Eng. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With multiple devices granted Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and CE mark for clinical use and many others in preclinical and clinical validation, visual prostheses represent a viable therapeutic solution to improve mobility and daily-life activities in blind individuals.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the network-mediated stimulation is also possible from an epiretinal device if long (more than 8 ms) or non-rectangular pulses are used [29][30][31].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.1. Retinal prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29][30][31]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 25
- It may state two separate claims as one. 52
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LGN in the thalamus has potential for individuals with either retinal or optic nerve pathologies.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3. Neuroprostheses for artificial vision through electrical stimulation
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Prospective approaches, like gene and cell therapies or optogenetics, only focus on the retina [5,6], and they are ineffective when pathologies irremediably damage the retina or the optic nerve [7,8].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Scholl, 2016, Emerging therapies for inherited retinal degeneration, Sci. Transl. Med. source
- Not checked yetcites [6] Xue, 2020, Correcting visual loss by genetics and prosthetics, Curr. Opin. Physiol. source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Mirochnik, 2019, Contemporary approaches to visual prostheses, Mil. Med. Res. source
- Not checked yetcites [8] Cehajic-Kapetanovic, 2022, Bioengineering strategies for restoring vision, Nat. Biomed. Eng. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With multiple devices granted Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and CE mark for clinical use and many others in preclinical and clinical validation, visual prostheses represent a viable therapeutic solution to improve mobility and daily-life activities in blind individuals.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Unlike AMD, RP is a set of rare inherited retinal rod-cone dystrophies, causing loss of night vision and the constriction of the visual field (tunnel vision), later followed by cone dysfunction and eventually total blindness (figure 4(c)) [5,22].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.1. Retinal prostheses
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AMD is the most preeminent pathology amongst outer retinal diseases.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.1. Retinal prostheses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although clinical trials showed that vision restoration is still far away, significant technological advances make visual prostheses a valuable solution for blind patients.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These diseases are the major causes of incurable blindness in the western world [21].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.1. Retinal prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Gregory-Evans, 1998, Genetic blindness: current concepts in the pathogenesis of human outer retinal dystrophies, Trends Genet. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the work to date has been focused on retinal stimulation, which quickly became the preferred strategy since it uses the downstream natural process of visual information.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3. Neuroprostheses for artificial vision through electrical stimulation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The optic nerve is also a target to elicit phosphenes and could have a broader range of applications than retinal prostheses.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3. Neuroprostheses for artificial vision through electrical stimulation
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, the visual cortex is a target for all blindness, but cortical injuries and stroke.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3. Neuroprostheses for artificial vision through electrical stimulation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the presence of debris due to photoreceptor degeneration might increase the distance from the electrodes to BCs and reduce resolution and stimulation efficiency [50].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.1.2. Subretinal prosthesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] Flores, 2018, Optimization of pillar electrodes in subretinal prosthesis for enhanced proximity to target neurons, J. Neural Eng. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Devices have a size providing a maximum restored visual angle of about 10 • , suitable only for applications where a small part of the visual field is lost, such as AMD [48,49].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.1.2. Subretinal prosthesis
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“After a few months of training, the patient distinguished line orientations and identified characters despite having only four electrodes [65][66][67].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.2. Optic nerve prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [65][66][67]
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, phosphenes were irregular in shape and not stable over time.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.2. Optic nerve prostheses
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Third, LGN presents retinotopic organisation and well-defined physical separation of the parvocellular and magnocellular pathways, respectively relaying information about small, slow, colourful things (parvocellular; high spatial frequency information; low temporal frequency information) and large, fast, and colourless things (magnocellular; low spatial frequency; high temporal frequency) [37,80].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.3. Thalamic prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] Lewis, 2015, Restoration of vision in blind individuals using bionic devices: a review with a focus on cortical visual prostheses, Brain Res. source
- Not checked yetcites [80] Abbasi, 2021, Advances in neuroscience, not devices, will determine the effectiveness of visual prostheses, Semin. Ophthalmol. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Suprachoroidal prostheses aim at the stimulation of BCs, but the considerable distance between the electrodes and the retina is a major issue.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.1.3. Suprachoroidal prosthesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Retinal tacks also lose mechanical stability over time, which can increase the distance between electrodes and the retina and, in consequence, increase the current required for retinal stimulation and reduce resolution [43][44][45].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.1.1. Epiretinal prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [43][44][45]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the relatively small diameter of the optic nerve facilitates the electrical stimulation of a wide visual field.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.2. Optic nerve prostheses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, they do not need fixation with retinal tacks and have greater mechanical stability.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.1.2. Subretinal prosthesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Like subretinal prostheses, they have good mechanical stability without fixation with retinal tacks [56,58] and, like epiretinal prostheses, they have good heat dissipation capacity and allow the insertion of large arrays [57].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.1.3. Suprachoroidal prosthesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [56] Eggenberger, 2021, Implantation and long-term assessment of the stability and biocompatibility of a novel 98 channel suprachoroidal visual prosthesis in sheep, Biomaterials source
- Not checked yetcites [58] Fujikado, 2016, One-year outcome of 49-channel suprachoroidal-transretinal stimulation prosthesis in patients with advanced retinitis pigmentosa, Investigative Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. source
- Not checked yetcites [57] Ayton, 2014, First-in-human trial of a novel suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis, PLoS One source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The LGN is a stratified compact structure in the thalamus receiving input from the optic nerve and relaying information to the primary visual cortex [7].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.3. Thalamic prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Mirochnik, 2019, Contemporary approaches to visual prostheses, Mil. Med. Res. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The patient reported phosphenes and described them by their position, shape, number of dots, colour and dimension.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.2. Optic nerve prostheses
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this implant is too rigid compared to the nerve tissue and is therefore unsuitable for chronic implantation.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.2. Optic nerve prostheses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Due to the considerable distance from BCs, high current amplitudes are required for retinal stimulation, possibly leading to damage due to overstimulation [35,61].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.1.3. Suprachoroidal prosthesis
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The GENNARIS (Monash Vision Group) consists of 11 modules with 43 electrodes each (figure 6(d)) [106].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.4. Cortical prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [106] Rosenfeld, 2020, Tissue response to a chronically implantable wireless intracortical visual prosthesis (Gennaris array), J. Neural Eng. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quantitative limitations in artificial vision are a product of both technological and biological challenges, which will be addressed in the following paragraphs, together with potential solutions.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4. Current challenges and potential solutions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The first cortical prosthesis had only four intracortical electrodes [86,87] but was able to evoke some visual percepts in the subject [88].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.4. Cortical prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [86] JC, 1958, Electronics brings light to the blind, Radio Electron.
- Not checked yetcites [87] Button, 1962, Visual responses to cortical stimulation in the blind, J. Iowa Med. Soc.
- Not checked yetcites [88] Lewis, 2016, Electrical stimulation of the brain and the development of cortical visual prostheses: an historical perspective, Brain Res. source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Intracortical prostheses are more invasive but take advantage of the close contact between the electrodes and the neurons to provide a more selective stimulation at much lower current amplitudes [100, 101].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.4. Cortical prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [100] Chen, 2020, Shape perception via a high-channel-count neuroprosthesis in monkey visual cortex, Science source
- Not checked yetcites [101] Caspi, 2021, Eye movements and the perceived location of phosphenes generated by intracranial primary visual cortex stimulation in the blind, Brain Stimul. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, evoked phosphenes are smaller and closer.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.4. Cortical prostheses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“So far, retinal prostheses have reached marketing approval [23,53,111], and other devices are in preclinical and clinical testing.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4. Current challenges and potential solutions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Muqit, 2019, Six-month safety and efficacy of the intelligent retinal implant system II device in retinitis pigmentosa, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [53] Edwards, 2018, Assessment of the electronic retinal implant alpha AMS in restoring vision to blind patients with end-stage retinitis pigmentosa, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [111] Luo, 2016, The Argus® II retinal prosthesis system, Prog. Retin. Eye Res. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The CORTIVIS (Miguel Hernández University of Elche) uses a Utah array with 100 electrodes [107].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.4. Cortical prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [107] Fernández, 2021, Visual percepts evoked with an intracortical 96-channel microelectrode array inserted in human occipital cortex, J. Clin. Invest. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In animals, LGN microstimulation produced simple discrete visual percepts [81] and visual cortical responses similar to those elicited by natural vision [82].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.3. Thalamic prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [81] Pezaris, 2007, Demonstration of artificial visual percepts generated through thalamic microstimulation, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. source
- Not checked yetcites [82] Panetsos, 2011, Consistent phosphenes generated by electrical microstimulation of the visual thalamus. An experimental approach for thalamic visual neuroprostheses, Front. Neurosci. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The volunteer, a blind subject with glaucoma, perceived phosphenes and recognised simple patterns.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.4. Cortical prostheses
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Epicortical prostheses are less invasive since they do not penetrate the brain, as confirmed by a post-mortem study on a patient implanted by Dobelle, who retained the epicortical array for 36 years (figure 6(c)) [77].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.4. Cortical prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [77] Towle, 2020, Postmortem investigation of a human cortical visual prosthesis that was implanted for 36 years, J. Neural Eng. source
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The ICVP (Illinois University of Technology) is developing a wireless floating microelectrode array with 16 microelectrodes [108].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.4. Cortical prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [108] Troyk, 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This distance reduces the spatial resolution of artificial vision [99], and high currents might be unsafe due to the risk of seizures [88].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 3.4. Cortical prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [99] Schmidt, 1996, Feasibility of a visual prosthesis for the blind based on intracortical micro stimulation of the visual cortex, Brain source
- Not checked yetcites [88] Lewis, 2016, Electrical stimulation of the brain and the development of cortical visual prostheses: an historical perspective, Brain Res. source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Object identification and recognition require devices that are able to provide a high enough resolution during artificial vision.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.2. Spatial resolution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two approaches to avoid axonal stimulation (selective direct stimulation and epiretinal network-mediated stimulation) point towards different directions, and today they seem mutually exclusive.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.2. Spatial resolution
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Most of the primary visual cortex surface lies in the interhemispheric area and the calcarine fissure [102], creating a hurdle for developing wide-angle cortical prostheses.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.1. Visual field size
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [102] Schira, 2012, Brain mapping: the (un)folding of striate cortex, Curr. Biol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This wireless solution avoids a trans-scleral cable which are known to limit the maximum number and density of electrodes on the device and to induce post-operative complications such as eye inflammation or leakage through the incision.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.1. Visual field size
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the electrode size is not the only limiting factor, and further reducing the electrode diameter might not correlate to better resolution [142].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.2. Spatial resolution
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [142] Behrend, 2011, Resolution of the epiretinal prosthesis is not limited by electrode size, IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the optic nerve and LGN are compact, making it easier to access the entire visual field of one eye (optic nerve) or a whole hemifield (LGN) with a single implant.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.1. Visual field size
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Subretinal prostheses are typically small in size, since large subretinal implants might encounter considerable difficulty in the surgical placement and represent a high risk of retinal detachment [32].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.1. Visual field size
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Yue, 2016, Retinal stimulation strategies to restore vision: fundamentals and systems, Prog. Retin. Eye Res. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The highest visual acuities reported to date, as measured with the Landolt-C test, were 20/460 with the subretinal implant PRIMA (in AMD patients) [48] and 20/546 with the subretinal implant Alpha-AMS (in RP patients) [133].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.2. Spatial resolution
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Epiretinal prostheses with higher pixel density and targeting network-mediated stimulation might overcome these issues and provide high resolution.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.2. Spatial resolution
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although placing the electrodes in higher visual areas [103] could be a possible solution to enlarge artificial vision.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.1. Visual field size
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [103] Meikle, 2022, Neurophysiological considerations for visual implants, Brain Struct. Funct. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, an open challenge for both subretinal (PRIMA) and epiretinal (POLYRETINA) photovoltaic implants is projecting wide-angle images through the pupil necessary to increase the visual field size.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.1. Visual field size
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A fixed electrode number reduces the electrode density if electrodes are spread over a wider surface area, which might worsen visual resolution [125].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.1. Visual field size
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [125] Waschkowski, 2014, Development of very large electrode arrays for epiretinal stimulation (VLARS), Biomed. Eng. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subretinal implants are further away from the GL, and usually induce circular phosphenes.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.2. Spatial resolution
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One solution would be to selectively activate individual RGCs by establishing a one-to-one connection between RGCs and electrodes [137].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.2. Spatial resolution
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [137] Gogliettino, 2022, High-fidelity restoration of visual signals by electrical stimulation in the central primate retina source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So far, most studies regarding spatial resolution have been conducted with retinal implants.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.2. Spatial resolution
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In retinal stimulation, photovoltaic technology is intuitive since the retina is designed to absorb the light entering from the pupil.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.1. Visual field size
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Otherwise, increasing the pulse duration [31] or using non-rectangular pulses [29] facilitates network-mediated stimulation.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.2. Spatial resolution
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Weitz, 2015, Improving the spatial resolution of epiretinal implants by increasing stimulus pulse duration, Sci. Transl. Med. source
- Not checked yetcites [29] Chenais, 2019, Capacitive-like photovoltaic epiretinal stimulation enhances and narrows the network-mediated activity of retinal ganglion cells by recruiting the lateral inhibitory network, J. Neural Eng. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, increasing spatial resolution means increasing the number of separable phosphenes per unit area evoked in the patient's visual field.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.2. Spatial resolution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Exploiting conformable or foldable substrates has two advantages: ease of insertion during the surgical procedure and improved contact with the neural tissue [176].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.2. Technological challenges 4.2.1. Electrode-tissue interface
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [176] Fallegger, 2020, Conformable hybrid systems for implantable bioelectronic interfaces, Adv. Mater. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, this ideal case is rarely reached and has only been reported for the PRIMA device [48] and some patients with Alpha IMS, most likely with preserved eye movements [154].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.3. Temporal resolution
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Visual prostheses could benefit from current-steering approaches that would limit the extent of the activated tissue during stimulation, reducing the risk of cross-talk and increasing the spatial selectivity.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.2. Spatial resolution
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To overcome this issue, POLYRETINA is a foldable and injectable photovoltaic epiretinal prosthesis that can be safely delivered with a 6 mm size cut through the sclera and conform better to the curvature of the eye [39,38].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.2. Technological challenges 4.2.1. Electrode-tissue interface
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Smaller electrodes have higher charge density stimulation threshold and lower dynamic range, as shown in explanted ratinas [160,161].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.2. Technological challenges 4.2.1. Electrode-tissue interface
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It has been shown that all biocompatible materials used so far provoke an inflammatory response and some degree of foreign body reaction [174,175].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.2. Technological challenges 4.2.1. Electrode-tissue interface
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Conductive polymers have been widely used in implantable devices for research as they are considerably softer than metals, flexible and conformable, and have a high charge injection capacity [166][167][168][169][170].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.2. Technological challenges 4.2.1. Electrode-tissue interface
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [166] Hassarati, 2014, Stiffness quantification of conductive polymers for bioelectrodes, J. Polym. Sci. B source
- Not checked yetcites [167] Ferlauto, 2018, Development and characterization of PEDOT:PSS/alginate soft microelectrodes for application in neuroprosthetics, Front. Neurosci. source
- Not checked yetcites [168] Fanelli, 2021, Transient neurovascular interface for minimally invasive neural recording and stimulation, Adv. Mater. Technol. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“which affects retinal prostheses and makes continuous perception above flicker fusion nearly impossible.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.1.3. Temporal resolution
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [148] Fornos, 2012, Temporal properties of visual perception on electrical stimulation of the retina, Investigative Opthalmol. Vis. Sci. source
- Not checked yetcites [149] Stronks, 2014, The functional performance of the Argus II retinal prosthesis, Expert Rev. Med. Device source
- Not checked yetcites [150] Stingl, 2013, Artificial vision with wirelessly powered subretinal electronic implant alpha-IMS, Proc. R. Soc. B source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Leads-wires breakage is common [35] and leads to malfunctioning or not functioning of the device.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.2.3. Wireless power and data transmission
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] Ayton, 2019, An update on retinal prostheses, Clin. Neurophysiol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Among other criteria, the selection for retinal prostheses is based on retinal imaging to verify structural integrity [217] and corneal stimulation with lens electrodes to verify the retinal excitability [217][218][219].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.3. Biological challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [217] Finn, 2018, Argus II retinal prosthesis system: a review of patient selection criteria, surgical considerations, and post-operative outcomes, Clin. Ophthalmol. source
- Not checked yetcites [218] Yanai, 2003, The value of preoperative tests in the selection of blind patients for a permanent microelectronic implant, Trans. Am. Ophthal. Soc.
- Not checked yetcites [219] Naycheva, 2012, Phosphene thresholds elicited by transcorneal electrical stimulation in healthy subjects and patients with retinal diseases, Investigative Opthalmol. Vis. Sci. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“So far, retinal prostheses have been implanted in end-stage RP patients which are not enough to make a profitable market [228].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 5. Road to market: what to learn from the first generation of clinically approved visual prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [228] Strickland, 2022, What happens when a bionic body part becomes obsolete?, IEEE Spectr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The device is now obsolete, and users declared not having technical support if their implant will stop working [228].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 5. Road to market: what to learn from the first generation of clinically approved visual prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [228] Strickland, 2022, What happens when a bionic body part becomes obsolete?, IEEE Spectr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Companies have had to face economic problems related to limited market size, cost of research and development, regulatory approval, and low acceptance of the device by clinicians and patients [229].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 5. Road to market: what to learn from the first generation of clinically approved visual prostheses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [229] Chevrie, 2020, Navigating the regulatory pathway for an innovative bionic vision system source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Machine learning could also play a role in optimising stimulation parameters to create more naturalistic electrical stimulation patterns, as shown for optic nerve [192] and cortical [193] prostheses.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.2.2. Image processing and advanced encoding strategies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [192] Romeni, 2021, A machine learning framework to optimize optic nerve electrical stimulation for vision restoration, Patterns source
- Not checked yetcites [193] Lozano, 2019, Understanding the brain function and emotions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While light-based technologies are convenient for retinal implants, they are not well suited for other visual prostheses which do not have a natural transparent window to light.”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 4.2.3. Wireless power and data transmission
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The number of people affected by RP is estimated to be about 1.5-2 million [226], but only 12% of these have a visual acuity worse than counting fingers and 0.5% have no perception of light [227].”
§ Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges > 5. Road to market: what to learn from the first generation of clinically approved visual prostheses
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Neuroplasticity triggered by learning and rehabilitation will improve artificial vision over time.
“Initially, phosphenes might be irregular and difficult to interpret, but it is assumed that neuroplasticity triggered by learning and rehabilitation will improve artificial vision over time (figure 3(b)) [20].”
The paper relies on this without support.
The entire visual field is mapped over the anatomical area in all structures mentioned (retina, optic nerve, LGN and V1).
“The entire visual field is mapped over the anatomical area in all the structures mentioned (retina, optic nerve, LGN and V1).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Stimulation parameters play a crucial role in the characteristics of phosphenes, such as brightness, duration, size or colour.
“The stimulation parameters play a crucial role in the characteristics of phosphenes, such as brightness, duration, size or colour.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When stimulation resolution is low, phosphenes might fuse into a blob during synchronous activation of multiple electrodes.
“When the stimulation resolution is low, as it is for the Argus® II or epicortical visual prostheses, it has been shown that phosphenes might fuse into a blob during synchronous activation of multiple electrodes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Artificial vision can be hampered by poor temporal resolution.
“Artificial vision can also be hampered by poor temporal resolution.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Little is known about visual targets other than the retina.
“Meanwhile, little is known about other visual targets.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Decreasing electrode size imposes constraints on the electrode material to maintain low impedance and high charge injection capacity.
“However, decreasing the electrode size imposes constraints on the electrode material to maintain low impedance and high charge injection capacity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Exceeding the charge injection limit of electrodes will cause irreversible damage to both electrodes and tissue.
“Exceeding the charge injection limit of electrodes will cause irreversible damage to both electrodes and tissue.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Matching neural tissue mechanical properties with implanted ones would help improve long-term stability and efficacy of stimulation.
“For visual prostheses, regardless of whether they are epineural or intraneural, matching the neural tissue mechanical properties with the implanted ones would help in improving the long-term stability and efficacy of the stimulation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Visual information processing is a crucial step.
“Visual information processing is a crucial step.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Saliency detection works efficiently for image or static object recognition tasks.
“This method works efficiently for image or static object recognition tasks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A drawback of machine learning methods is the high training cost required for good accuracy.
“A drawback of these methods is the high training cost required for good accuracy.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Phosphene maps are specific to each patient and might change over time.
“Such a customised approach is needed because phosphenes maps are specific to each patient and might change over time.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most image processing algorithms and closed-loop approaches have been tested so far in-silico or in-vitro.
“Most of the image processing algorithms and the closed-loop approaches have been tested so far in-silico or in-vitro.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Neurostimulation has been routinely performed with electrodes wired to an electric pulse generator.
“Neurostimulation has been routinely performed with electrodes wired to an electric pulse generator.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In general, a prosthesis is validated for its efficacy in animal models.
“In general, a prosthesis is validated for its efficacy in animal models.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It remains unclear whether experimental animals are appropriate models to predict efficacy in humans.
“However, it remains unclear whether experimental animals are appropriate models to predict efficacy in humans.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Even when blind animal models are used, it is difficult to establish how well they reflect human diseases.
“Even when blind animal models are used, it is difficult to establish how well they reflect human diseases.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Remodelling might be extremely variable from patient to patient.
“In addition, remodelling might be extremely variable from patient to patient.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Variability could also be found in residual oculomotor behaviour, cellular preservation along the visual pathway, and remaining neuroplasticity.
“Variability could also be found in the residual oculomotor behaviour, cellular preservation along the visual pathway, and remaining neuroplasticity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The downside of qualitative functional vision tests is limited relevance out of a controlled laboratory environment.
“The downside of these tests is the limited relevance out of a controlled laboratory environment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Medical device regulation is a crucial step for any kind of neuroprosthetic device.
“Medical device regulation is another crucial step for any kind of neuroprosthetic device.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Neurotechnology is a rapidly growing field, with several new companies entering the business.
“Neurotechnology is a rapidly growing field, with several new companies entering the business.”
Citations
Cites
Foreign body reaction to biomaterials
Anderson, J. M., Rodriguez, A., & Chang, D. T. (2008) · Seminars in Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.smim.2007.11.004 · Cited by 5,138 · cited 1×
“It has been shown that all biocompatible materials used so far provoke an inflammatory response and some degree of foreign body reaction [174, 175].”
BackgroundCauses of vision loss worldwide, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis
Bourne, R., Stevens, G. A., White, R. A., Smith, J. L., Flaxman, S. R., Price, H., Jonas, J. B., Keeffe, J. E., Leasher, J. L., Naidoo, K. S., et al. (2013) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(13)70113-x · Cited by 1,882
The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health: vision beyond 2020
Burton, M. J., Ramke, J., Marques, A. P., Bourne, R. R. A., Congdon, N., Jones, I., Ah Tong, B. A. M., Arunga, S., Bachani, D., Bascaran, C., et al. (2021) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30488-5 · Cited by 1,624
Bourne, R., Steinmetz, J. D., Flaxman, S., Briant, P. S., Taylor, H. R., Resnikoff, S., Casson, R. J., Abdoli, A., Abu-Gharbieh, E., Afshin, A., et al. (2021) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30425-3 · Cited by 1,431
The Neuronal Organization of the Retina
Masland, R. H. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.002 · Cited by 1,245
The sensations produced by electrical stimulation of the visual cortex
Brindley, G. S., & Lewin, W. S. (1968) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1968.sp008519 · Cited by 1,170 · cited 1×
“One of the first permanent cortical stimulators implanted in humans was a visual prosthesis [89].”
BackgroundHamel, C. (2006) · Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · doi:10.1186/1750-1172-1-40 · Cited by 962
The antidepressant fluoxetine restores plasticity in the adult visual cortex
Vetencourt, J. F. M., Sale, A., Viegi, A., Baroncelli, L., De Pasquale, R., F. O'Leary, O., Castrén, E., & Maffei, L. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1150516 · Cited by 890
Visual perception in a blind subject with a chronic microelectronic retinal prosthesis
Humayun, M. S., Weiland, J. D., Fujii, G. Y., Greenberg, R., Williamson, R., Little, J., Mech, B., Cimmarusti, V., Van Boemel, G., Dagnelie, G., et al. (2003) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(03)00457-7 · Cited by 856
Subretinal electronic chips allow blind patients to read letters and combine them to words
Zrenner, E., Bartz-Schmidt, K. U., Benav, H., Besch, D., Bruckmann, A., Gabel, V.-P., Gekeler, F., Greppmaier, U., Harscher, A., Kibbel, S., et al. (2011) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1747 · Cited by 819
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- LeRoy, 1755, Mémoire où l’on rend compte de quelques tentatives que l’on a faites pour guérir plusieurs maladies par l’électricité, Hist. Acad. R. Sci., 60, 87
- Foerster, 1929, Beitrage zur pathophysiologie der sehbahn und der spehsphare, J. Psychol. Neurol., 39, 435
- JC, 1958, Electronics brings light to the blind, Radio Electron., 29, 53
- Button, 1962, Visual responses to cortical stimulation in the blind, J. Iowa Med. Soc., 52, 17
- Michael, 2020, Video-mode percepts are smaller than sums of single-electrode phosphenes with the Orion® visual cortical prosthesis, Investigative Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., 61, 927
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zeng, Q., & Huang, Z. (2023) · Advanced Functional Materials · doi:10.1002/adfm.202301223 · Cited by 104
Retinal Prostheses: Engineering and Clinical Perspectives for Vision Restoration
Wu, K. Y., Mina, M., Sahyoun, J.-Y., Kalevar, A., & Tran, S. D. (2023) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s23135782 · Cited by 75
Wireless Battery-free and Fully Implantable Organ Interfaces
Bhatia, A., Hanna, J., Stuart, T., Kasper, K. A., Clausen, D. M., & Gutruf, P. (2024) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.3c00425 · Cited by 50
Potential therapeutic strategies for photoreceptor degeneration: the path to restore vision
Karamali, F., Behtaj, S., Abraki, S. B., Hadady, H., Atefi, A., Savoj, S., Soroushzadeh, S., Najafian, S., Nasr‐Esfahani, M. H., & Klassen, H. J. (2022) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-022-03738-4 · Cited by 27
Li, J., Zhou, W., Liang, L., Li, Y., Xu, K., Li, X., Huang, Z., & Yu, J. (2024) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-023-04766-4 · Cited by 19
Attitudes of potential recipients toward emerging visual prosthesis technologies
Karadima, V., Pezaris, E., & Pezaris, J. S. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-36913-8 · Cited by 20
Li, L., Jiang, C., & Li, L. (2023) · Micromachines · doi:10.3390/mi15010070 · Cited by 13
Suematsu, N., Vazquez, A. L., & Kozai, T. D. Y. (2024) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ad3853 · Cited by 12
The mechanism of human color vision and potential implanted devices for artificial color vision
Zhang, B., Zhang, R., Zhao, J., Yang, J., & Xu, S. (2024) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2024.1408087 · Cited by 12
The role of the visual field size in artificial vision
Ghezzi, D. (2023) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/acc7cd · Cited by 13
Self-citationPre‐processing visual scenes for retinal prosthesis systems: A comprehensive review
Holiel, H. A., Fawzi, S. A., & Al‐Atabany, W. (2024) · Artificial Organs · doi:10.1111/aor.14824 · Cited by 11
A 128-channel neural stimulation and recording ASIC for scalable cortical visual prosthesis
Raducanu, B. C., Aymerich, J., Hsu, W.-Y., Hendrickx, P., & López, C. M. (2023) · European Solid-State Circuits Conference (ESSCIRC) · doi:10.1109/esscirc59616.2023.10268749 · Cited by 8
An actor-model framework for visual sensory encoding
Leong, F., Rahmani, B., Psaltis, D., Moser, C., & Ghezzi, D. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45105-5 · Cited by 8
Self-citationFull-field, conformal epiretinal electrode array using hydrogel and polymer hybrid technology
Zhou, M., Young, B. K., della Valle, E., Koo, B., Kim, J., & Weiland, J. D. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-32976-9 · Cited by 7
Xu, J., Wang, C., Li, Y., Huang, X., Zhao, M., Shen, Z., Liu, Y., Wan, Y., Sun, F., Zhang, J., et al. (2025) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s25134223 · Cited by 6
Roadmap on advances in visual and physiological optics
Gómez-Correa, J. E., Vohnsen, B., Pierscionek, B. K., Cerda, S. C., Kling, S., Rozema, J. J., Applegate, R. A., Scarcelli, G., Randleman, J. B., Goncharov, A. V., et al. (2025) · Journal of Optics · doi:10.1088/2040-8986/ae1bb8 · Cited by 7
Bridging complexity through integrative systems neuroscience
Chang, E. H. (2024) · Frontiers in Systems Biology · doi:10.3389/fsysb.2024.1487298 · Cited by 6
Decoding electroencephalographic responses to visual stimuli compatible with electrical stimulation
Romeni, S., Toni, L., Artoni, F., & Micera, S. (2024) · APL Bioengineering · doi:10.1063/5.0195680 · Cited by 5
Near‐Infrared Organic Photovoltaic Electrodes for Subretinal Neurostimulation
Corna, A., Gugujonović, K., Schiek, M., Bellapianta, A., Werginz, P., Ziller, A., Scharber, M. C., Salti, A., Bolz, M., Irimia‐Vladu, M., et al. (2025) · Advanced Functional Materials · doi:10.1002/adfm.202515327 · Cited by 6
Integrating Eye-Tracking With Cortical Visual Prostheses in Patients Without Eyes: A Case Study
Wacławczyk, D., Soo, L., Ruiz, R. M., Caspi, A., & Fernández, E. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2025.3615286 · Cited by 4
Engineering Materials for Neurotechnology
Ghezzi, D. (2023) · Advanced Engineering Materials · doi:10.1002/adem.202201412 · Cited by 2
Self-citationVisual Prostheses in the Era of Artificial Intelligence Technology
Sarbout, I., Gungor, A., Ounissi, M., Zaher, S., Ptito, M., Kupers, R., Racoceanu, D., & Milea, D. (2025) · Eye and Brain · doi:10.2147/eb.s524322 · Cited by 3
A computational model to design wide field-of-view optic nerve neuroprostheses
Romeni, S., Luca, D. D., Pierantoni, L., Toni, L., Marino, G., Moccia, S., & Micera, S. (2024) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.111321 · Cited by 2
An, N. H., Roh, H., Kim, S., Kim, J. H., & Im, M. (2025) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.202405789 · Cited by 2
Youssef, A. R., & Morsy, A. (2023) · BMC Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1186/s42490-023-00072-8 · Cited by 5
Lemaire, W., Benhouria, M., Koua, K., Tong, W., Martin-Hardy, G., Stamp, M. E. M., Ganesan, K., Gauthier, L.-P., Besrour, M., Ahnood, A., et al. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2024.3516492 · Cited by 2
Xie, H., Ye, Z., & Chan, L. L. H. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-08657-0 · Cited by 2
Object recognition from sparse simulated phosphenes and curved segments
Scialom, E., Ernst, U. A., Rotermund, D., & Herzog, M. H. (2025) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2025.108718 · Cited by 3
Hinrichs, S., Placidet, L., Duret, A., Authié, C., Arleo, A., & Ghezzi, D. (2024) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ad8b6f · Cited by 1
Self-citationMinimizing the number of phosphenes required for object recognition under prosthetic visionPreprint
Scialom, E., Ernst, U. A., Rotermund, D., & Herzog, M. H. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.09.26.614440 · Cited by 1
Optimization and Analysis of High-frequency Data Receiver Coil for Artificial Retina
Kavitha, R., & Malarkodi, B. (2023) · IETE Journal of Research · doi:10.1080/03772063.2023.2194271
Lavoie, J., Besrour, M., Lemaire, W., Rouat, J., Fontaine, R., & Plourde, É. (2023) · Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/acf1a5
Contemporary approaches towards emerging visual prosthesis technologies
Rashika, M., Atheena, M. P. S., & Mohammed, S. S. (2024) · i-manager s Journal on Material Science · doi:10.26634/jms.12.1.21033
Vadeghani, E. M., Moallemi, A., & Shahriari, D. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-95730-4.00005-6
Brain–Machine Interface and Rehabilitation
Ranjan, M., Pham, M. H., Taghva, A. S., Konrad, P. E., & Rezai, A. R. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80662-0_31
Improvement of dynamic phosphene presentation for a cortical visual prosthesis is task-specific
Wang, H. Z., & Wong, Y. T. (2024) · Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) · doi:10.1109/embc53108.2024.10782366
A Preliminary Exploration on Ultrasonic Retinal Modulation: A Modelling Study
Tian, J., Li, J., Liu, Z., Dai, C., Song, X., Liu, J., Niu, J., & Li, L. (2024) · International Congress on Image and Signal Processing (CISP) · doi:10.1109/cisp-bmei64163.2024.10906102
Hinrichs, S., Tisserand, Y., Scialom, E., & Ghezzi, D. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.03.27.645647
Self-citationOptimization frameworks for bespoke sensory encoding in neuroprosthetics
Leong, F., Micera, S., & Shokur, S. (2025) · APL Bioengineering · doi:10.1063/5.0249434
Emerging Biomaterials for Retinal Implants
Italiano, M. L., Guo, T., Tsai, D., Lovell, N. H., & Shivdasani, M. N. (2025) · Royal Society of Chemistry eBooks · doi:10.1039/9781839169779-00097
Skaza, J., Murlidaran, S., Varshney, A., Wen, Z., Eckstein, M. P., & Beyeler, M. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.06.23.660990
Mid-level visual features engage V4 to support sparse object recognition under uncertaintyPreprint
Loued‐Khenissi, L., Scialom, E., Lutti, A., Herzog, M., & Draganski, B. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.10.28.685033
Hahn, N., Moure, P., & Liu, S. (2025) · Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) · doi:10.1109/embc58623.2025.11253749
Cieślik, A., Chudzik, J., Dąbczyński, P., Rysz, J., Bernasik, A., Grabowska, M., & Raczkowska, J. (2026) · ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering · doi:10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6c00427
Metadata
- Authors
- Borda, E., & Ghezzi, D.
- Affiliations
- École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Ghezzi, Diego
- ORCID
- Ghezzi, Diego
- Venue
- Progress in Biomedical Engineering
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2022-07-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 032003
- ISSN
- 2516-1091 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4285495317
- Semantic Scholar
- 3b6925ab0142dc85a604e582d0eb39235b7e56ed
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 222
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 4.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Progress in Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Medtronic
- École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
- Keywords
- retinal prosthesis, blindness, vision restoration, biomedical implants, artificial vision, open problems
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
