Using the Z-bellSM Test to Remediate Spatial Deficiencies in Non-Image-Forming Retinal Processing

  • Clark ElliottEmail author
  • Cynthia PutnamEmail author
  • Deborah ZelinskyEmail author
  • Daniel Spinner
  • Silpa Vipparti
  • Abhinit Parelkar
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 943)


Preliminary evidence from a larger study is presented demonstrating that non-image-forming retinal processing takes place even through closed eyelids. The Z-bellSM test, which has been in clinical use for more than twenty years shows that these processing channels affect how we perceive context in the space around us when forming visual imagery. By using therapeutic eyeglasses and pitched bells, we can measure changes in a subject’s spatial processing, and remediate deficiencies among non-image-forming neural channels that operate in even the low-light conditions produced by closed eyelids. Using what we know of both the top-down feedback filtering of retinal input triggered purely by aural signals and also the characteristic difficulties that brain-injured patients have in organizing visual scenes (which the Z-bellSM test links to difficulties with non-image-forming retinal processing), it is argued that the non-image-forming retinal channels demonstrated in this study may be critical in any human-centric model of computer vision. Spatial coding as a basis for human cognition is also briefly discussed.


Peripheral vision Retina Z-bell Spatial cognition Context 


  1. 1.
    NORA: Neuro-Optometric Rehabilitation Association., Accessed 27 Nov 2018
  2. 2.
    Super, S.: Brain imaging and therapeutics congress: key points & extended bibliography. In: Elliott, C. (ed.) The 15th Annual World Congress of Society for Brain Mapping & Therapeutics, Proceedings of the Workshop on Neuro-optometry, Neuromodulation and Cognition, pp. 59–73 (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellmund, J., Gardenfors, P., Moser, E., Doeller, C.: Navigating cognition: spatial codes for human thinking. Science 362(6415) (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balkenius, C.: Gärdenfors, spaces in the brain: from neurons to meanings. Front. Psychol. 7, 1820 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kafaligonul, H., Breitmeyer, B., Ogmen, H.: Feedforward and feedback processes in vision. Frontiers Psychol. 6, 279 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Markus, D.: Designs for strong minds’ cognitive rehabilitation for mild and moderate posttraumatic head injuries. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 18(1), 109–131 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elliott, C.: The brain is primarily a visual-spatial processing device: altering visual-spatial cognitive processing via retinal stimulation can treat movement disorders. Funct. Neurol. Rehabil. Ergon. 7(3), 24–38 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elliott, C.: The Ghost In My Brain: How a Concussion Stole My Life and How The New Science of Brain Plasticity Helped Me Get it Back. Viking Penguin, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zelinksy, D.: Neuro-optometric diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation following traumatic brain injuries: a brief overview. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 18(1), 87–107 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vetter, P., Smith, F.W., Muckli, L.: Decoding sound and imagery content in early visual cortex. Curr. Biol. 24(11), 1256–1262 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pylyshyn, Z.: Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behav. Brain Sci. 22(3), 341–423 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tramatic Brain Injury and Concussion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed 27 Nov 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DePaul University, 1 DePaul CenterChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Mind-Eye InstituteNorthbrookUSA

Personalised recommendations