PreprintCited by 57Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringTactile and Sensory InteractionsEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

End-to-end optimization of prosthetic vision

Open access
de Ruyter van Steveninck, Jaap, Güçlü, Umut, van Wezel, Richard, van Gerven, Marcel·2020·Journal of Vision

Preprint — published as 10.1167/jov.22.2.20 · Paper page

Abstract

Neural prosthetics may provide a promising solution to restore visual perception in some forms of blindness. The restored prosthetic percept is rudimentary compared to normal vision and can be optimized with a variety of image preprocessing techniques to maximize relevant information transfer. Extracting the most useful features from a visual scene is a non-trivial task and optimal preprocessing choices strongly depend on the context. Despite rapid advancements in deep learning, research currently faces a difficult challenge in finding a general and automated preprocessing strategy that can be tailored to specific tasks or user requirements. In this paper we present a novel deep learning approach that explicitly addresses this issue by optimizing the entire process of phosphene generation in an end-to-end fashion. The proposed model is based on a deep auto-encoder architecture and includes a highly adjustable simulation module of prosthetic vision. In computational validation experiments we show that such an approach is able to automatically find a task-specific stimulation protocol. The presented approach is highly modular and could be extended to dynamically optimize prosthetic vision for everyday tasks and requirements of the end-user.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2020.12.19.423601

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • By design, the stimulation protocol usually has low-resolution to match the poor resolution of typical RCPs, such as 32×32 pixels.

    “By design, the stimulation protocol usually has low-resolution to match the poor resolution of typical RCPs, such as 32×32 pixels.88”

    From Visual Prostheses in the Era of Artificial Intelligence Technology (2025) · cites this paper as [88]

    The Model description (page not provided) uses a 32 × 32 stimulation protocol in this paper’s simulation, and the Introduction says visual prostheses have limited resolution. The paper does not establish that stimulation protocols usually use 32 × 32 pixels or that this is the resolution of typical RCPs. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The realism of simulated prosthetic vision models is frequently limited by an overall neglect of phosphene models, which are often confused with electrical stimulation protocols, or by using unrealistic simulation settings.

    “However, the realism of these models is frequently limited by an overall neglect of phosphene models, which are often confused with electrical stimulation protocols,72 or by using unrealistic simulation settings.76,88”

    From Visual Prostheses in the Era of Artificial Intelligence Technology (2025) · cites this paper as [88]

    The Limitations and future directions section says this study’s simulated prosthetic vision is a simplified model and identifies phosphene features it does not simulate. That supports an example of limited simulation realism, but not the broader assertion that unrealistic settings frequently limit such models. The separate claim about confusing phosphene models with stimulation protocols is attached to citation 72, not attributed to this source here. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Of the five end-to-end studies identified, two relied on auto-encoding strategies and three entailed reinforcement learning approaches.

    “Of the five end-to-end studies that we identified, two relied on auto-encoding strategies,88,91 where the task to be learnt is reconstructing an original image, and three entailed reinforcement learning approaches,87,89,90 for which the scope of learned tasks is wider.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Ruyter van Steveninck, J., Güçlü, U., van Wezel, R., & van Gerven, M.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Venue
Journal of Vision
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2020-12-21
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
20-20
ISSN
1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4214727024
Cited by
54
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Vision (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Radboud Universiteit
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Department of Artificial Intelligence, Korea University
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
neuroprosthetics, prosthetic vision, vision restoration, blindness, end-to-end optimization, autoencoder, image preprocessing, stimulation protocol optimization, visual perception
MeSH terms
Blindness, Computer Simulation, Humans, Phosphenes, Vision Disorders, Visual Perception

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