Cited by 47Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyTactile and Sensory Interactions

Eye movement control in the Argus II retinal-prosthesis enables reduced head movement and better localization precision

Open access
Caspi, Avi, Roy, Arup, Wuyyuru, Varalakshmi, Rosendall, Paul E., Harper, Jason W., Katyal, Kapil D., Barry, Michael P., Dagnelie, Gislin +1 more·2018·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

Purpose: Visual scanning by sighted individuals is done using eye and head movements. In contrast, scanning using the Argus II is solely done by head movement, since eye movements can introduce localization errors. Here, we tested if a scanning mode utilizing eye movements increases visual stability and reduces head movements in Argus II users. Methods: Eye positions were measured in real-time and were used to shift the region of interest (ROI) that is sent to the implant within the wide field of view (FOV) of the scene camera. Participants were able to use combined eye-head scanning: shifting the camera by moving their head and shifting the ROI within the FOV by eye movement. Eight blind individuals implanted with the Argus II retinal prosthesis participated in the study. A white target appeared on a touchscreen monitor and the participants were instructed to report the location of the target by touching the monitor. We compared the spread of the responses, the time to complete the task, and the amount of head movements between combined eye-head and head-only scanning. Results: All participants benefited from the combined eye-head scanning mode. Better precision (i.e., narrower spread of the perceived location) was observed in six out of eight participants. Seven of eight participants were able to adopt a scanning strategy that enabled them to perform the task with significantly less head movement. Conclusions: Integrating an eye tracker into the Argus II is feasible, reduces head movements in a seated localization task, and improves pointing precision.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/iovs.17-22377

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caspi, A., Roy, A., Wuyyuru, V., Rosendall, P. E., Harper, J. W., Katyal, K. D., Barry, M. P., Dagnelie, G., & Greenberg, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Jerusalem College of Technology (IL)
  • Second Sight Medical Products (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Caspi, Avi
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2018-02-01
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
792
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
OpenAlex
W2787566947
Cited by
47
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
Argus II retinal prosthesis, oculomotor control, localization precision, eye tracking, blind users, visual exploration, visual stability
MeSH terms
Aged, Blindness, Eye Movements, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychomotor Performance, Retinitis Pigmentosa, Visual Acuity, Head Movements, Persons with Visual Disabilities, 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