The influence of visual field position induced by a retinal prosthesis simulator on mobility
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.
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.
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.
The superior and wide visual field (VF3) obtained by the retinal prosthesis simulator resulted in better mobility performance than the other visual fields.
KeywordsMobility test Suprachoroidal–transretinal stimulation Retinal prosthesis simulator Visual field Head-scanning
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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