PreprintCited by 13Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringTactile and Sensory InteractionsPain Management and Treatment

A model of ganglion axon pathways accounts for percepts elicited by retinal implants

Open access
Beyeler, Michael, Nanduri, Devyani, Weiland, James D., Rokem, Ariel, Boynton, Geoffrey M., Fine, Ione·2018·bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Preprint — published as 10.1038/s41598-019-45416-4 · Paper page

Abstract

Retinal prostheses, now implanted in over 250 patients worldwide, electrically stimulate surviving cells in order to evoke neuronal responses that are interpreted by the brain as visual percepts (‘phosphenes’). However, instead of seeing focal spots of light, current implant users perceive highly distorted phosphenes that vary in shape both across subjects and electrodes. We characterized these distortions by asking users of the Argus retinal prosthesis system (Second Sight Medical Products) to draw elicited percepts on a touchscreen. We found that phosphene shape could be accurately predicted by simulating the topographic organization of nerve fiber bundles in each subject’s retina. Our model shows that activation of ganglion axons contributes to a rich repertoire of phosphene shapes, successfully replicating percepts ranging from ‘blobs’ to oriented ‘streaks’ and ‘wedges’ depending on electrode location. This work provides a first step towards future devices that incorporate stimulation strategies tailored to each individual patient’s retinal neurophysiology. One Sentence Summary: We show that the perceptual experience of retinal implant users can be accurately predicted using a computational model that simulates the topographic organization of each individual patient’s retinal ganglion axon pathways.

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 · 10.1101/453035

Cites

80 of 80 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?

  • In retinal prostheses, there is no straightforward spatial correspondence between the retinal position of electrode stimulation and the perceived location of the evoked phosphene in visual space, since stimulation current propagates across ganglion axon pathways, often causing phosphenes to be elongated.

    “In the case of retinal prostheses, there is no straightforward spatial correspondence between the retinal position of electrode stimulation and the perceived location of the evoked phosphene in visual space, since stimulation current propagates across ganglion axon pathways,57 often causing phosphenes to be elongated.”
  • Stimulation protocols (current amplitude and frequency sent to each electrode) and perceived phosphenes are distinct in the task of modelling phosphene perception.

    “It is necessary to make a distinction between stimulation protocols (current amplitude and frequency sent to each electrode) and perceived phosphenes in the task of modelling phosphene perception.57,102,103”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. D. Nanduri, M. S. Humayun, R. J. Greenberg, M. J. McMahon, J. D. Weiland, in 2008 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. (2008), pp. 1785-1788.
  2. M. Beyeler, G. M. Boynton, I. Fine, A. Rokem, in Proceedings of the 16th Python in Science Conference, K. Huff, D. Lippa, D. Niederhut, M. Pacer, Eds. (Austin, TX, 2017), pp. 81-88.
  3. J. Kennedy, R. C. Eberhart, in IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks. (Perth, Australia, 1995), vol. 4, pp. 1942-1948.
  4. R. Storn, in Proceedings of North American Fuzzy Information Processing. (1996), pp. 519- 523.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beyeler, M., Nanduri, D., Weiland, J. D., Rokem, A., Boynton, G. M., & Fine, I.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Beyeler, Michael
Venue
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2018-10-25
OpenAlex
W2898172397
Cited by
13
References
80
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  • Washington Research Foundation
  • University of Washington
  • Amazon Web Services
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH K99)
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY014645, R01EY012925)
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, phosphenes, Argus II, electrode stimulation, visual percepts

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