PreprintCited by 15Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringTactile and Sensory InteractionsVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Human-in-the-loop optimization of visual prosthetic stimulation

Open access
Fauvel, Tristan, Chalk, Matthew·2021·Journal of Neural Engineering

Preprint — published as 10.1088/1741-2552/ac7615 · Paper page

Abstract

A bstract: Retinal prostheses are a promising strategy to restore sight to patients with retinal degenerative diseases. These devices compensate for the loss of photoreceptors by electrically stimulating neurons in the retina. Currently, the visual function that can be recovered with such devices is very limited. This is due, in part, to current spread, unintended axonal activation, and the limited resolution of existing devices. Here we show, using a recent model of prosthetic vision, that optimizing how visual stimuli are encoded by the device can help overcome some of these limitations, leading to dramatic improvements in visual perception. We propose a strategy to do this in practice, using patients’ feedback in a visual task. The main challenge of our approach comes from the fact that, typically, one only has access to a limited number of noisy responses from patients. We propose two ways to deal with this: first, we use a model of prosthetic vision to constrain and simplify the optimization; second, we use preferential Bayesian optimization to efficiently learn the encoder using minimal trials. To test our approach, we presented healthy subjects with visual stimuli generated by a recent model of prosthetic vision, to replicate the perceptual experience of patients fitted with an implant. Our optimization procedure led to significant and robust improvements in perceived image quality, that transferred to increased performance in other tasks. Importantly, our strategy is agnostic to the type of prosthesis and thus could readily be implemented in existing implants.

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 · 10.1101/2021.11.24.469867

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • This approach allowed inclusion of patient's preferences for stimulation parameters optimization and was proposed in two studies, one using virtual patients and one using real sighted patients under SPV.

    “This approach allowed inclusion of patient’s preferences for stimulation parameters optimization and was proposed in two studies, one using virtual patients96 and one using real sighted patients under SPV.99”

    From Visual Prostheses in the Era of Artificial Intelligence Technology (2025) · cites this paper as [96]

    Sections 2.1 and 2.4 describe optimization experiments with normally sighted, healthy participants viewing simulated prosthetic percepts; section 4.3 says the method models participants’ preferences. This supports the study under simulated prosthetic vision, but the participants were not patients, as the citing sentence states. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Another approach consisted in using human-in-the-loop optimization to improve the perceived image in a simulated prosthetic vision setting.

    “Another approach consisted in using human-in-the-loop optimization to improve the perceived image in a simulated prosthetic vision setting.96,99”

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 82 · Cited by 15

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. J. B. Nielsen. Systems for Personalization of Hearing Instruments. PhD thesis, Technical University of Denmark, 2015.
  2. C. P. Robert. Le choix bayésien. Statistique et probabilités appliquées. Springer-Verlag, Paris, 2006.

Authors
Fauvel, T., & Chalk, M.
Affiliations
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
  • Fauvel, Tristan
  • Chalk, Matthew
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2021-11-25
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
036038-036038
ISSN
1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4281742554
Cited by
15
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
FWCI
1.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-17-CE37-0013)
  • Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
retinal prosthesis, human-in-the-loop optimization, Bayesian optimization, patient feedback, visual perception, retinal degeneration, current spread, perceptual image quality
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Humans, Photic Stimulation, Retina, Retinal Degeneration, Visual Perception, Visual Prosthesis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review