4.2 Article

Visually guided performance of simple tasks using simulated prosthetic vision

期刊

ARTIFICIAL ORGANS
卷 27, 期 11, 页码 1016-1028

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING INC
DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1594.2003.07309.x

关键词

simulated prosthetic vision; retinal prostheses; pixelized images; visual acuity; object recognition; activities of daily living

资金

  1. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R01EY012843] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NEI NIH HHS [R01 EY12843, R01 EY012843] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Loss of photoreceptor cells is one of the major causes of blindness. Several groups are exploring the functional replacement of photoreceptors by a retinal prosthesis. The goal of this study was to simulate the vision levels that recipients of retinal prostheses with 4x4, 6x10, and 16x16 electrode arrays may experience, and to test the functionality of this vision. A PC video camera captured images that were converted in real time into dots (pixels). The PC monitor and a head-mounted display worn by test subjects displayed the pixelized images. To assess performance of normally sighted individuals with each array, we designed a set of tasks including: four-choice orientation discrimination of a Sloan letter E, object recognition and discrimination, a cutting task, a pouring task, symbol recognition, and two reading tasks. In the letter E task, subjects were found to have visual acuities of 20/1,810, 20/1,330, and 20/420 with the 4x4, 6x10, and 16x16 arrays, respectively. Most subjects were able to read fonts as small as 36 point with the 16x16 array, corresponding with a visual acuity of 20/600 in our system. The test subjects partially overcame the visual limitation of the system by scanning the video camera over the letters allowing spatial and temporal integration of visual information. In all categories, subjects performed best with the 16x16 array and least well with the 4x4 array. Even with the lowest resolution array, however, some subjects could recognize simple objects and symbols.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据