Abstract
Purpose Visual prosthetics have emerged as a promising assistive technology for individuals with vision loss, yet research often overlooks the human aspects of this technology. While previous studies have concentrated on the perceptual experiences of implant recipients (implantees) or the attitudes of potential implantees towards near-future implants, a systematic account of how current implants are being used in everyday life is still lacking.
Methods We interviewed six recipients of the most widely used visual implants (Argus II and Orion) and six leading researchers in the field. Through thematic and statistical analyses, we explored the daily usage of these implants by implantees and compared their responses to the expectations of researchers. We also sought implantees’ input on desired features for future versions, aiming to inform the development of the next generation of implants.
Results Although implants are designed to facilitate various daily activities, we found that implantees use them less frequently than researchers expected. This discrepancy primarily stems from issues with usability and reliability, with implantees finding alternative methods to accomplish tasks, reducing the need to rely on the implant. For future implants, implantees emphasized the desire for improved vision, smart integration, and increased independence.
Conclusions Our study reveals a significant gap between researcher expectations and implantee experiences with visual prostheses, underscoring the importance of focusing future research on usability and real-world application.
Translational relevance This work advocates for a better alignment between technology development and implantee needs to enhance clinical relevance and practical utility of visual prosthetics.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Research reported in this publication was partially supported by the National Library Of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number DP2LM014268. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
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 study was deemed exempt from review by the Institutional Review Board of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding information: Research reported in this publication was partially supported by the National Library Of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number DP2LM014268. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Commercial relationships: None.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
