CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 478Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringTactile and Sensory InteractionsRetinal Development and Disorders

Perceptual efficacy of electrical stimulation of human retina with a microelectrode array during short-term surgical trials

Rizzo, Joseph F., Wyatt, John, Loewenstein, John, Kelly, Shawn, Shire, Doug·2003·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
DOI 10.1167/iovs.02-0817
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: This work is part of a feasibility assessment of a retinal prosthesis as a means to restore vision to patients with blindness caused by retinitis pigmentosa. The primary goal was to assess the concordance of the form of induced perception and the pattern of electrical stimulation of the retina, and the reproducibility of the responses. METHODS: Five volunteers with severe retinitis pigmentosa and one with normal vision were studied. A companion paper in this issue provides details on demographics, visual function, surgical methods, general stimulation strategy, and data analysis. Volunteers were awake during surgery while a 10-microm-thick, microfabricated electrode array was placed on the retina. The array was connected to extraocular current sources that delivered charges to 50-, 100-, and 400-microm-diameter electrodes. Negative control trials were randomly included. Perceptual quality was judged by the similarity between the form of stimulation and perception (i.e., accuracy) and the reproducibility of responses. RESULTS: Only 1 of 40 control tests yielded a false-positive result. On average, volunteers 3, 5, and 6 reported percepts that matched the stimulation pattern 48% and 32% of the time for single- and multiple-electrode trials, respectively. Two-point discrimination in the best cases may have been achieved in two blind subjects using (center-to-center) electrode separation of 600 and 1960 microm. Reproducibility was achieved 66% of the time in the blind subjects. By comparison, in the normal-sighted subject, perceptual form was reported accurately 57% of the time, with 82% reproducibility, and two-point discrimination may have been achieved in one trial with 620-microm electrode spacing and in two trials each with 1860- and 2480-microm electrode spacing. In subjects 5 and 6, perceptual size was inconsistently related to the charge, although relatively large differences in charge (median: 0.55 microcoulombs [microC]) between two trials produced differently sized percepts. Longer stimuli did not produce rounder percepts. CONCLUSIONS: Single percepts induced by single-electrode stimulation were relatively small, but the form of percepts, especially after multielectrode stimulation, often did not match the stimulation pattern, even in a normal-sighted volunteer. Reproducible percepts were more easily generated than those that matched the stimulation pattern.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/iovs.02-0817

Cites

22 of 22 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?

  • In epiretinal implants, perceptual distortions are largely due to inadvertent activation of passing axon fibers.

    “In the case of epiretinal implants, these distortions are largely due to inadvertent activation of passing axon fibers (Rizzo et al., 2003; Beyeler et al., 2019), but other device technologies based on electrical stimulation of visual cortex or optogenetics may face related issues.”

    From Towards a <i>Smart Bionic Eye</i> : AI-powered artificial vision for the treatment of incurable blindness (2022) · cites this paper as Rizzo et al., 2003

  • Early research suggested that repeated paired stimulation resulted in reproducible phosphenes, with participants perceiving 'similar' phosphenes on 66% of trials.

    “Early research suggested that repeated paired stimulation resulted in reproducible phosphenes as participants perceived ‘similar’ phosphenes on 66% of trials (Rizzo et al 2003).”

    From Axonal stimulation affects the linear summation of single-point perception in three Argus II users (2024) · cites this paper as Rizzo et al 2003

  • Phosphene shape depends strongly on the retinal location of the stimulating electrode, predominantly elongated along the trajectory of the underlying nerve fiber bundle.

    “Phosphene shape has been shown to depend strongly on the retinal location of the stimulating electrode, predominantly elongated along the trajectory of the underlying nerve fiber bundle (Rizzo et al 2003, Beyeler et al 2019b).”

    From Axonal stimulation affects the linear summation of single-point perception in three Argus II users (2024) · cites this paper as Rizzo et al 2003

  • These results provide further evidence in support of the axon map model for epiretinal stimulation.

    “We also found that the number of perceived phosphenes increased with the between-axon distance of two stimulating electrodes, but not the along-axon distance, thus providing further evidence in support of the axon map model for epiretinal stimulation (Rizzo et al 2003, Nanduri 2011, Beyeler et al 2019b).”

    From Axonal stimulation affects the linear summation of single-point perception in three Argus II users (2024) · cites this paper as Rizzo et al 2003

  • This result provides further evidence in support of the axon map model for epiretinal stimulation.

    “This result provides the first computational evidence that paired-electrode epiretinal stimulation is more likely to elicit two distinct phosphenes as the distance between their underlying axon bundles increases (as opposed to retinal distance alone), and provides further evidence in support of the axon map model for epiretinal stimulation (Rizzo et al 2003, Nanduri 2011, Beyeler et al 2019b).”

    From Axonal stimulation affects the linear summation of single-point perception in three Argus II users (2024) · cites this paper as Rizzo et al 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rizzo, J. F., Wyatt, J., Loewenstein, J., Kelly, S., & Shire, D.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
ORCID
Kelly, Shawn
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Publisher
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO)
Published
2003-12-01
Volume
44
Issue
12
Pages
5362
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
DOI
10.1167/iovs.02-0817
OpenAlex
W1974423604
Cited by
478
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 23
FWCI
6.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Retinal Development and Disorders
Keywords
retinal prosthesis, retinitis pigmentosa, microelectrode arrays, visual perception, two-point discrimination, electrode spacing, vision restoration, blind subjects, surgical trials, stimulus duration, microfabricated electrodes, visual evoked potentials
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Blindness, Electric Stimulation, False Positive Reactions, Female, Humans, Male, Microelectrodes, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Retinaldehyde, Retinitis Pigmentosa, Sensory Thresholds, Visual Perception, Reproducibility of Results

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