The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
The Argus II epiretinal prosthesis system allows letter and word reading and long-term function in patients with profound vision loss
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Retinal prosthesis systems (RPS) are a novel treatment for profound vision loss in outer retinal dystrophies. Ideal prostheses would offer stable, long-term retinal stimulation and reproducible spatial resolution in a portable form appropriate for daily life. METHODS: We report a prospective, internally controlled, multicentre trial of the Argus II system. Twenty-eight subjects with light perception vision received a retinal implant. Controlled, closed-group, forced-choice letter identification, and, open-choice two-, three- and four-letter word identification tests were carried out. RESULTS: The mean±SD percentage correct letter identification for 21 subjects tested were: letters L, T, E, J, F, H, I, U, 72.3±24.6% system on and 17.7±12.9% system off; letters A, Z, Q, V, N, W, O, C, D, M, 55.0±27.4% system on and 11.8%±10.7% system off, and letters K, R, G, X, B, Y, S, P, 51.7±28.9% system on and 15.3±7.4% system off. (p<0.001 for all groups). A subgroup of six subjects was able to consistently read letters of reduced size, the smallest measuring 0.9 cm (1.7°) at 30 cm, and four subjects correctly identify unrehearsed two-, three- and four-letter words. Average implant duration was 19.9 months. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple blind subjects fitted with the Argus II system consistently identified letters and words using the device, indicating reproducible spatial resolution. This, in combination with stable, long-term function, represents significant progress in the evolution of artificial sight.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The Argus II used 60 electrodes, leading to demonstrably higher visual acuity compared to its predecessor.
“Its successor, the Argus II,9 used 60 electrodes, leading to demonstrably higher visual acuity21 compared to its predecessor”
From Visual Prostheses in the Era of Artificial Intelligence Technology (2025) · cites this paper as [21]
The paper’s description of the Argus II system states that it has a 60-electrode array. The Discussion reports letter-identification performance but says this is not a formal visual-acuity measure; it does not demonstrate higher visual acuity than the Argus I. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredArgus II devices allowed only about half of test subjects to reliably read large-print letters, and single-letter recognition took between six seconds and 3.5 minutes.
“For example, Argus II devices enabled only ~50% of test subjects to reliably read large-print letters (41° or ~22.6 cm letters viewed from 30 cm away), and single-letter recognition took anywhere between six seconds to 3.5 minutes (da Cruz et al. 2013).”
From Sequential epiretinal stimulation improves discrimination in simple shape discrimination tasks only (2022) · cites this paper as da Cruz et al. 2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 359
Metadata
- Authors
- da Cruz, L., Coley, B. F., Dorn, J., Merlini, F., Filley, E., Christopher, P., Chen, F. K., Wuyyuru, V., Sahel, J., Stanga, P., Humayun, M., Greenberg, R. J., Dagnelie, G., & for the Argus II Study Group
- Affiliations
- Second Sight Medical Products (US)
- Retina Foundation of the Southwest (US)
- Lions Eye Institute (AU)
- Manchester Royal Eye Hospital (GB)
- Doheny Eye Institute (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Venue
- British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2013-02-20
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 632-636
- ISSN
- 0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2079
- PMC
- PMC3632967
- OpenAlex
- W2109006034
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 11
- FWCI
- 20.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- British Journal of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Eye Institute (R01EY012893, R01EY021220)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Development and Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Keywords
- Argus II, epiretinal prosthesis, retinal prosthesis, letter recognition, word reading, artificial vision, spatial resolution
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Electrodes, Implanted, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Reading, Retinitis Pigmentosa, Visual Acuity, Visual Perception, Vision, Low, Choroideremia, Prosthesis Implantation, 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