Advertisement

The influence of visual field position induced by a retinal prosthesis simulator on mobility

  • Takao Endo
  • Kenta Hozumi
  • Masakazu Hirota
  • Hiroyuki Kanda
  • Takeshi Morimoto
  • Kohji Nishida
  • Takashi FujikadoEmail author
Low Vision

Abstract

Purpose

Our aim is to develop a new generation of suprachoroidal–transretinal stimulation (STS) retinal prosthesis using a dual-stimulating electrode array to enlarge the visual field. In the present study, we aimed to examine how position and size of the visual field—created by a retinal prosthesis simulator—influenced mobility.

Methods

Twelve healthy subjects wore retinal prosthesis simulators. Images captured by a web camera attached to a head-mounted display (HMD) were processed by a computer and displayed on the HMD. Three types of artificial visual fields—designed to imitate phosphenes—obtained by a single (5 × 5 electrodes; visual angle, 15°) or dual (5 × 5 electrodes ×2; visual angle, 30°) electrode array were created. Visual field (VF)1 is an inferior visual field, which corresponds to a dual-electrode array implanted in the superior hemisphere. VF2 is a superior visual field, which corresponds to a single-electrode array implanted in the inferior hemisphere. VF3 is a superior visual field, which corresponds to a dual-electrode array implanted in the inferior hemisphere. In each type of artificial visual field, a natural circular visual field (visual angle, 5°) which imitated the vision of patients with advanced retinitis pigmentosa existed at the center. Subjects were instructed to walk along a black carpet (6 m long × 2.2 m wide) without stepping on attached white circular obstacles. Each obstacle was 20 cm in diameter, and obstacles were installed at 40-cm intervals. We measured the number of footsteps on the obstacles, the time taken to complete the obstacle course, and the extent of head movement to scan the area (head-scanning). We then compared the results recorded from these 3 types of artificial visual field.

Results

The number of footsteps on obstacles was lowest in VF3 (One-way ANOVA; P = 0.028, Fisher’s LSD; VF 1 versus 3 P = 0.039, 2 versus 3 P = 0.012). No significant difference was observed for the time to complete the obstacle course or the extent of head movement between the 3 visual fields.

Conclusion

The superior and wide visual field (VF3) obtained by the retinal prosthesis simulator resulted in better mobility performance than the other visual fields.

Keywords

Mobility test Suprachoroidal–transretinal stimulation Retinal prosthesis simulator Visual field Head-scanning 

Notes

Funding

This study was supported by KAKENHI (Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research B 16H05487).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of Osaka University Hospital and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Iwase A, Araie M, Tomidokoro A, Yamamoto T, Shimizu H, Kitazawa Y, Tajimi Study G (2006) Prevalence and causes of low vision and blindness in a Japanese adult population: the Tajimi Study. Ophthalmology 113:1354–1362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.04.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kocur I, Resnikoff S (2002) Visual impairment and blindness in Europe and their prevention. Br J Ophthalmol 86:716–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Humayun MS, Weiland JD, Fujii GY, Greenberg R, Williamson R, Little J, Mech B, Cimmarusti V, Van Boemel G, Dagnelie G, de Juan E (2003) Visual perception in a blind subject with a chronic microelectronic retinal prosthesis. Vis Res 43:2573–2581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rizzo JF 3rd, Wyatt J, Loewenstein J, Kelly S, Shire D (2003) Perceptual efficacy of electrical stimulation of human retina with a microelectrode array during short-term surgical trials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:5362–5369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zrenner E (2002) Will retinal implants restore vision? Science 295:1022–1025.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1067996 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chow AY, Chow VY, Packo KH, Pollack JS, Peyman GA, Schuchard R (2004) The artificial silicon retina microchip for the treatment of vision loss from retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol 122:460–469.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.122.4.460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lorach H, Goetz G, Mandel Y, Lei X, Galambos L, Kamins TI, Mathieson K, Huie P, Dalal R, Harris JS, Palanker D (2015) Performance of photovoltaic arrays in-vivo and characteristics of prosthetic vision in animals with retinal degeneration. Vis Res 111:142–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wong YT, Chen SC, Seo JM, Morley JW, Lovell NH, Suaning GJ (2009) Focal activation of the feline retina via a suprachoroidal electrode array. Vis Res 49:825–833.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shivdasani MN, Luu CD, Cicione R, Fallon JB, Allen PJ, Leuenberger J, Suaning GJ, Lovell NH, Shepherd RK, Williams CE (2010) Evaluation of stimulus parameters and electrode geometry for an effective suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis. J Neural Eng 7:036008.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/7/3/036008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fujikado T, Kamei M, Sakaguchi H, Kanda H, Endo T, Hirota M, Morimoto T, Nishida K, Kishima H, Terasawa Y, Oosawa K, Ozawa M, Nishida K (2016) One-year outcome of 49-channel suprachoroidal-transretinal stimulation prosthesis in patients with advanced retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 57:6147–6157.  https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.16-20367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stingl K, Schippert R, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Besch D, Cottriall CL, Edwards TL, Gekeler F, Greppmaier U, Kiel K, Koitschev A, Kühlewein L, MacLaren RE, Ramsden JD, Roider J, Rothermel A, Sachs H, Schröder GS, Tode J, Troelenberg N, Zrenner E (2017) Interim results of a multicenter trial with the new electronic subretinal implant alpha AMS in 15 patients blind from inherited retinal degenerations. Front Neurosci 11:445–445.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marigold DS, Patla AE (2008) Visual information from the lower visual field is important for walking across multi-surface terrain. Exp Brain Res 188:23–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1335-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Black AA, Wood JM, Lovie-Kitchin JE (2011) Inferior visual field reductions are associated with poorer functional status among older adults with glaucoma. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 31:283–291.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2010.00811.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abe RY, Diniz-Filho A, Costa VP, Gracitelli CP, Baig S, Medeiros FA (2016) The impact of location of progressive visual field loss on longitudinal changes in quality of life of patients with glaucoma. Ophthalmology 123:552–557.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Haan GA, Melis-Dankers BJ, Brouwer WH, Tucha O, Heutink J (2015) The effects of compensatory scanning training on mobility in patients with homonymous visual field defects: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 10:e0134459.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134459 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Haan GA, Melis-Dankers BJ, Brouwer WH, Tucha O, Heutink J (2016) The effects of compensatory scanning training on mobility in patients with homonymous visual field defects: further support, predictive variables and follow-up. PLoS One 11:e0166310.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sabbah N, Authie CN, Sanda N, Mohand-Said S, Sahel JA, Safran AB (2014) Importance of eye position on spatial localization in blind subjects wearing an Argus II retinal prosthesis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55:8259–8266.  https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.14-15392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Caspi A, Roy A, Wuyyuru V, Rosendall PE, Harper JW, Katyal KD, Barry MP, Dagnelie G, Greenberg RJ (2018) Eye movement control in the Argus II retinal-prosthesis enables reduced head movement and better localization precision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 59:792–802.  https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-22377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Titchener SA, Shivdasani MN, Fallon JB, Petoe MA (2018) Gaze compensation as a technique for improving hand-eye coordination in prosthetic vision. Transl Vis Sci Technol 7:2.  https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.7.1.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glen FC, Smith ND, Crabb DP (2015) Impact of superior and inferior visual field loss on hazard detection in a computer-based driving test. Br J Ophthalmol 99:613–617.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305932 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dive S, Rouland JF, Lenoble Q, Szaffarczyk S, McKendrick AM, Boucart M (2016) Impact of peripheral field loss on the execution of natural actions: a study with glaucomatous patients and normally sighted people. J Glaucoma 25:e889–e896.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takao Endo
    • 1
  • Kenta Hozumi
    • 1
  • Masakazu Hirota
    • 2
  • Hiroyuki Kanda
    • 2
  • Takeshi Morimoto
    • 2
  • Kohji Nishida
    • 1
  • Takashi Fujikado
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Applied Visual ScienceOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations