The Argus II epiretinal prosthesis system allows letter and word reading and long-term function in patients with profound vision loss

Lyndon da Cruz, Brian F Coley, Jessy Dorn, Francesco Merlini, Eugene Filley, Punita Christopher, Fred K Chen, Varalakshmi Wuyyuru, Jose Sahel, Paulo Stanga, Mark Humayun, Robert J Greenberg, Gislin Dagnelie, Argus II Study Group, Lyndon da Cruz, Brian F Coley, Jessy Dorn, Francesco Merlini, Eugene Filley, Punita Christopher, Fred K Chen, Varalakshmi Wuyyuru, Jose Sahel, Paulo Stanga, Mark Humayun, Robert J Greenberg, Gislin Dagnelie, Argus II Study Group

Abstract

Background: Retinal prosthesis systems (RPS) are a novel treatment for profound vision loss in outer retinal dystrophies. Ideal prostheses would offer stable, long-term retinal stimulation and reproducible spatial resolution in a portable form appropriate for daily life.

Methods: We report a prospective, internally controlled, multicentre trial of the Argus II system. Twenty-eight subjects with light perception vision received a retinal implant. Controlled, closed-group, forced-choice letter identification, and, open-choice two-, three- and four-letter word identification tests were carried out.

Results: The mean±SD percentage correct letter identification for 21 subjects tested were: letters L, T, E, J, F, H, I, U, 72.3±24.6% system on and 17.7±12.9% system off; letters A, Z, Q, V, N, W, O, C, D, M, 55.0±27.4% system on and 11.8%±10.7% system off, and letters K, R, G, X, B, Y, S, P, 51.7±28.9% system on and 15.3±7.4% system off. (p<0.001 for all groups). A subgroup of six subjects was able to consistently read letters of reduced size, the smallest measuring 0.9 cm (1.7°) at 30 cm, and four subjects correctly identify unrehearsed two-, three- and four-letter words. Average implant duration was 19.9 months.

Conclusions: Multiple blind subjects fitted with the Argus II system consistently identified letters and words using the device, indicating reproducible spatial resolution. This, in combination with stable, long-term function, represents significant progress in the evolution of artificial sight.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Photograph of a subject with the Argus II system showing the video glasses (a), the Video processing unit (b) and the inductive coil (c). (B) Subject showing the format for the letter identification tasks with a letter displayed on a monitor in white on black, Century Gothic font. The monitor on the side shows the real time map of the electrodes being stimulated in the array (A) and the camera view (V); note that the actual test is carried out in the dark. (C) Fundus photograph of the retinal stimulating array in situ. The optic nerve is indicated and the retinal tack that secures the electrode array is clearly visible. (D) Diagram illustrating the difference between the electrode activation maps under the ‘home use’ (standard) and ‘scrambled’ mode when the camera is viewing the letter L. In the scrambled mode, the spatial correspondence between a point's real position and the stimulation position on the array has been randomised. In this way, the patient does not receive spatial information but does receive non-spatial light detection information.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Box and whisker graphs illustrating the median percentage correct and quartiles for Test I letter Groups A, B and C comparing the device on and off. For Groups A, B and C, n=21, 19 and 20, respectively. (**

Figure 3

A graph showing the mean…

Figure 3

A graph showing the mean and SEs of the total number of letters…

Figure 3
A graph showing the mean and SEs of the total number of letters identified correctly in two test runs of letter size reduction using the Argus II retinal prosthesis system. (*p
Similar articles
Cited by
References
    1. Zrenner E. Will retinal implants restore vision? Science 2002;295:1022–5 - PubMed
    1. Rizzo JF, O'Malley ER, Hessburg PC. The eye and the chip 2008. J Neural Eng 2009;3:030201. - PubMed
    1. Weiland JD, Liu W, Humayun MS. Retinal prosthesis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2005;7:361–401 - PubMed
    1. Zrenner E. The subretinal implant: can microphotodiode arrays replace degenerated retinal photoreceptors to restore vision? Ophthalmologica 2002;216(Suppl 1):8–20 - PubMed
    1. Rizzo JF, III, Wyatt J, Loewenstein J, et al. Perceptual efficacy of electrical stimulation of human retina with a microelectrode array during short-term surgical trials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:5362–9 - PubMed
Show all 25 references
Publication types
MeSH terms
Related information
LinkOut - more resources
Full text links [x]
[x]
Cite
Copy Download .nbib
Format: AMA APA MLA NLM
Figure 3
Figure 3
A graph showing the mean and SEs of the total number of letters identified correctly in two test runs of letter size reduction using the Argus II retinal prosthesis system. (*p

References

    1. Zrenner E. Will retinal implants restore vision? Science 2002;295:1022–5
    1. Rizzo JF, O'Malley ER, Hessburg PC. The eye and the chip 2008. J Neural Eng 2009;3:030201.
    1. Weiland JD, Liu W, Humayun MS. Retinal prosthesis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2005;7:361–401
    1. Zrenner E. The subretinal implant: can microphotodiode arrays replace degenerated retinal photoreceptors to restore vision? Ophthalmologica 2002;216(Suppl 1):8–20
    1. Rizzo JF, III, Wyatt J, Loewenstein J, et al. Perceptual efficacy of electrical stimulation of human retina with a microelectrode array during short-term surgical trials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:5362–9
    1. Yanai D, Weiland JD, Mahadevappa M, et al. Visual performance using a retinal prosthesis in three subjects with retinitis pigmentosa. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;143:820–7
    1. Besch D, Sachs H, Szurman P, et al. Extraocular surgery for implantation of an active subretinal visual prosthesis with external connections: feasibility and outcome in seven patients. Br J Ophthalmol 2008;92:1361–8
    1. Roessler G, Laube T, Brockmann C, et al. Implantation and explantation of a wireless epiretinal retina implant device: observations during the EPIRET3 prospective clinical trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:3003–8
    1. Chow AY, Chow VY, Packo KH, et al. The artificialsilicon retina microchip for the treatment of vision loss from retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:460–9
    1. Humayun MS, Dorn JD, Ahuja AK, et al. Preliminary 6 month results from the argus II epiretinal prosthesis feasibility study. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2009;1:4566–8
    1. Horsager A, Greenberg RJ, Fine I. Spatiotemporal interactions in retinal prosthesis subjects invest. Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:1223–33
    1. Zrenner E, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Benav H, et al. Subretinal electronic chips allow blind patients to read letters and combine them to words. Proc R Soc B 2011;278:1489–97
    1. Ahuja AK, Dorn JD, Caspi A, et al. Argus II study group blind subjects implanted with the Argus II retinal prosthesis are able to improve performance in a spatial-motor task. Br J Ophthalmol 2011;95:539–43
    1. Chader GJ, Weiland J, Humayun MS. Artificial vision: needs, functioning, and testing of a retinal electronic prosthesis. Prog Brain Res 2009;175:317–32
    1. Dagnelie G. Psychophysical evaluation for visual prosthesis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2008;10:339–68
    1. Geruschat DR, Turano KA, Stahl JW. Traditional measures of mobility performance and retinitis pigmentosa. Optom Vis Sci 1998;75:525–37
    1. Szlyk JP, Fishman GA, Alexander KR. Relationship between difficulty in performing daily activities and clinical measures of visual function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115:53–9
    1. Massof RW. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79:516–52
    1. Kaiser PK. Prospective evaluation of visual acuity assessment: a comparison of snellen versus ETDRS charts in clinical practice (an Aos thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2009;107:311–24
    1. Schulze-Bonsel K, Feltgen N, Burau H, et al. Visual acuities ‘hand motion’ and ‘counting fingers’ can be quantified with the Freiburg visual acuity test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:1236–40
    1. Bach M, Wilke M, Wilhelm B, et al. Basic quantitative assessment of visual performance in patients with very low vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:1255–60
    1. Matthaei M, Zeitz O, Keseru M, et al. Progress in the development of vision prostheses. Ophthalmologica 2011;225:187–92
    1. Humayun MS, Weiland JD, Fujii GY, et al. Visual perception in a blind subject with a chronic microelectronic retinal prosthesis. Vision Res 2003;43:2573–81
    1. Greenberg RJ, Velte TJ, Humayun MS, et al. A computational model of electrical stimulation of the retinal ganglion cell. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1999;46:505–14
    1. Caspi A, Dorn JD, McClure KH, et al. Feasibility study of a retinal prosthesis: spatial vision with a 16-electrode implant. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:398–401

Source: PubMed

3
订阅