CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringRetinal Development and DisordersTactile and Sensory Interactions

Optimization of Electrical Stimulation for a High-Fidelity Artificial Retina

Shah, Nishal P., Madugula, Sasidhar, Grosberg, Lauren, Mena, Gonzalo, Tandon, Pulkit, Hottowy, Pawel, Sher, Alexander, Litke, Alan +2 more·2019·2019 9th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER)
DOI 10.1109/ner.2019.8716987
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Retinal prostheses aim to restore visual perception in patients blinded by photoreceptor degeneration, by stimulating surviving retinal ganglion cells (RGCs), causing them to send artificial visual signals to the brain. Present-day devices produce limited vision, in part due to indiscriminate and simultaneous activation of many RGCs of different types that normally signal asynchronously. To improve artificial vision, we propose a closed-loop, cellular-resolution device that automatically identifies the types and properties of nearby RGCs, calibrates its stimulation to produce a dictionary of achievable RGC activity patterns, and then uses this dictionary to optimize stimulation patterns based on the incoming visual image. To test this concept, we use a high-density multi-electrode array as a lab prototype, and deliver a rapid sequence of electrical stimuli from the dictionary, progressively assembling a visual image within the visual integration time of the brain. Greedily minimizing the error between the visual stimulus and a linear reconstruction (as a surrogate for perception) yields a real-time algorithm with an efficiency of 96% relative to optimum. This framework also provides insights for developing efficient hardware. For example, using only the most effective 50% of electrodes minimally affects performance, suggesting that an adaptive device configured using measured properties of the patient's retina may permit efficiency with accuracy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/ner.2019.8716987

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Alternative stimulation strategies have not been validated in vivo in humans using perceptually relevant pulse-train stimulation, and most do not address the substantial day-to-day variability in cortical responses that limits clinical reliability.

    “While alternative stimulation strategies have been proposed [25–39], none have been validated in vivo in humans using perceptually relevant pulse-train stimulation, and most do not address the substantial day-to-day variability in cortical responses that limits clinical reliability.”

    From Deep Learning–Based Control of Electrically Evoked Activity in Human Visual Cortex (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

  • Several studies have proposed more sophisticated stimulus encoding strategies to recreate a desired neural activity pattern over a given temporal window, but none of these approaches are able to predict the perceptual consequences of the resulting neural activity.

    “Several studies have already proposed more sophisticated stimulus encoding strategies to recreate a desired neural activity pattern over a given temporal window (Shah et al., 2019; Spencer et al., 2019; Ghaffari et al., 2021). However, none of these approaches are able to predict the perceptual consequences of the resulting neural activity.”

    From Towards a <i>Smart Bionic Eye</i> : AI-powered artificial vision for the treatment of incurable blindness (2022) · cites this paper as Shah et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Shah, N. P., Madugula, S., Grosberg, L., Mena, G., Tandon, P., Hottowy, P., Sher, A., Litke, A., Mitra, S., & Chichilnisky, E. J.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
ORCID
Venue
2019 9th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2019-03
Pages
714-718
ISSN
1948-3554 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/ner.2019.8716987
OpenAlex
W2945793360
Cited by
32
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
18.12
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Retinal Development and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
retinal prosthesis, artificial retina, retinal ganglion cells, closed-loop stimulation, microelectrode arrays, visual perception, linear reconstruction, electrode efficiency, adaptive stimulation

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