» Articles » PMID: 18515576

Factors Affecting Perceptual Thresholds in Epiretinal Prostheses

Abstract

Purpose: The goal was to evaluate how perceptual thresholds are related to electrode impedance, electrode size, the distance of electrodes from the retinal surface, and retinal thickness in six subjects blind as a result of retinitis pigmentosa, who received epiretinal prostheses implanted monocularly as part of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved clinical trial.

Methods: The implant consisted of an extraocular unit containing electronics for wireless data, power recovery, and generation of stimulus current, and an intraocular unit containing 16 platinum stimulating electrodes (260- or 520-microm diameter) arranged in a 4 x 4 pattern. The electrode array was held onto the retina by a small tack. Stimulation was controlled by a computer-based external system that allowed independent control over each electrode. Perceptual thresholds (the current necessary to see a percept on 79% of trials) and impedance were measured for each electrode on a biweekly basis. The distance of electrodes from the retinal surface and retinal thickness were measured by optical coherence tomography on a less regular basis.

Results: Stimulation thresholds for detecting phosphenes correlated with the distance of the electrodes from the retinal surface, but not with electrode size, electrode impedance, or retinal thickness.

Conclusions: Maintaining close proximity between the electrode array and the retinal surface is critical in developing a successful retinal implant. With the development of chronic electrode arrays that are stable and flush on the retinal surface, it is likely that the influence of other factors such as electrode size, retinal degeneration, and subject age will become more apparent. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00279500.).

Citing Articles

Efficient Spatial Estimation of Perceptual Thresholds for Retinal Implants via Gaussian Process Regression.

Sadeghi R, Beyeler M ArXiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39990794 PMC: 11844632.


Spatially Localized Visual Perception Estimation by Means of Prosthetic Vision Simulation.

Villarreal D, Krautschneider W J Imaging. 2024; 10(11).

PMID: 39590758 PMC: 11595353. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging10110294.


Axonal stimulation affects the linear summation of single-point perception in three Argus II users.

Hou Y, Nanduri D, Granley J, Weiland J, Beyeler M J Neural Eng. 2024; 21(2).

PMID: 38457841 PMC: 11003296. DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/ad31c4.


Explainable machine learning predictions of perceptual sensitivity for retinal prostheses.

Pogoncheff G, Hu Z, Rokem A, Beyeler M J Neural Eng. 2024; 21(2).

PMID: 38452381 PMC: 11144548. DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/ad310f.


Effect of epiretinal electrical stimulation on the glial cells in a rabbit retinal eyecup model.

Henze D, Majdi J, Cohen E Front Neurosci. 2024; 18:1290829.

PMID: 38318467 PMC: 10839094. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1290829.


References
1.
Rizzo 3rd J, Wyatt J, Loewenstein J, Kelly S, Shire D . Perceptual efficacy of electrical stimulation of human retina with a microelectrode array during short-term surgical trials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44(12):5362-9. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.02-0817. View

2.
Shah S, Hines A, Zhou D, Greenberg R, Humayun M, Weiland J . Electrical properties of retinal-electrode interface. J Neural Eng. 2007; 4(1):S24-9. DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/4/1/S04. View

3.
Dorman M, Smith L, Dankowski K, McCandless G, Parkin J . Long-term measures of electrode impedance and auditory thresholds for the Ineraid cochlear implant. J Speech Hear Res. 1992; 35(5):1126-30. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3505.1126. View

4.
WATSON A, Pelli D . QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percept Psychophys. 1983; 33(2):113-20. DOI: 10.3758/bf03202828. View

5.
Sekirnjak C, Hottowy P, Sher A, Dabrowski W, Litke A, Chichilnisky E . Electrical stimulation of mammalian retinal ganglion cells with multielectrode arrays. J Neurophysiol. 2006; 95(6):3311-27. DOI: 10.1152/jn.01168.2005. View