Abstract
Objective Electrical stimulation of the retina can elicit flashes of light called phosphenes, which can be used to restore rudimentary vision for people with blindness. Functional sight requires stimulation of multiple electrodes to create patterned vision, but phosphenes tend to merge together in an uninterpretable way. Sequentially stimulating electrodes in human visual cortex has recently demonstrated that shapes could be “drawn” with better perceptual resolution relative to simultaneous stimulation. The goal of this study was to evaluate if sequential stimulation would also form clearer shapes when the retina is the neural target.
Approach Two human participants with retinitis pigmentosa who had Argus® II retinal prostheses participated in this study. We evaluated different temporal parameters for sequential stimulation in phosphene shape mapping and forced-choice discrimination tasks. For the discrimination tasks, performance was compared between stimulating electrodes simultaneously versus sequentially.
Main results Phosphenes elicited by different electrodes were reported as vastly different shapes. Sequential electrode stimulation outperformed simultaneous stimulation in simple discrimination tasks, in which shapes were created by stimulating 3-4 electrodes, but not in more complex discrimination tasks involving 5+ electrodes. For sequential stimulation, the optimal pulse train duration was 200 ms when stimulating at 20 Hz and the optimal gap interval was tied between 0 and 50 ms. Efficacy of sequential stimulation also depended strongly on selecting electrodes that elicited phosphenes with similar shapes and sizes.
Significance An epiretinal prosthesis can produce coherent simple shapes with a sequential stimulation paradigm, which can be used as rudimentary visual feedback. However, success in creating more complex shapes, such as letters of the alphabet, is still limited. Sequential stimulation may be most beneficial for epiretinal prostheses in simple tasks, such as basic navigation, rather than complex tasks such as object identification.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT04359108
Funding Statement
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01EY029741. In addition, this work was supported with the resources and use of facilities at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Johns Hopkins Medicine Institutional Review Board gave ethical approval for this work. Informed consent was obtained prior to participation in research-related activities.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
