Gaze Compensation as a Technique for Improving Hand–Eye Coordination in Prosthetic Vision

Purpose Shifting the region-of-interest within the input image to compensate for gaze shifts (“gaze compensation”) may improve hand–eye coordination in visual prostheses that incorporate an external camera. The present study investigated the effects of eye movement on hand-eye coordination under simulated prosthetic vision (SPV), and measured the coordination benefits of gaze compensation. Methods Seven healthy-sighted subjects performed a target localization-pointing task under SPV. Three conditions were tested, modeling: retinally stabilized phosphenes (uncompensated); gaze compensation; and no phosphene movement (center-fixed). The error in pointing was quantified for each condition. Results Gaze compensation yielded a significantly smaller pointing error than the uncompensated condition for six of seven subjects, and a similar or smaller pointing error than the center-fixed condition for all subjects (two-way ANOVA, P < 0.05). Pointing error eccentricity and gaze eccentricity were moderately correlated in the uncompensated condition (azimuth: R2 = 0.47; elevation: R2 = 0.51) but not in the gaze-compensated condition (azimuth: R2 = 0.01; elevation: R2 = 0.00). Increased variability in gaze at the time of pointing was correlated with greater reduction in pointing error in the center-fixed condition compared with the uncompensated condition (R2 = 0.64). Conclusions Eccentric eye position impedes hand–eye coordination in SPV. While limiting eye eccentricity in uncompensated viewing can reduce errors, gaze compensation is effective in improving coordination for subjects unable to maintain fixation. Translational Relevance The results highlight the present necessity for suppressing eye movement and support the use of gaze compensation to improve hand–eye coordination and localization performance in prosthetic vision.

[1]  M. A. Frens,et al.  Recording eye movements with video-oculography and scleral search coils: a direct comparison of two methods , 2002, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[2]  Matthias Walter,et al.  Playing checkers: detection and eye–hand coordination in simulated prosthetic vision , 2006 .

[3]  Samuel A. Titchener,et al.  Identification of Characters and Localization of Images Using Direct Multiple-Electrode Stimulation With a Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis. , 2017, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[4]  Brett J. Graham,et al.  A Self-Calibrating, Camera-Based Eye Tracker for the Recording of Rodent Eye Movements , 2010, Front. Neurosci..

[5]  Hugh J. McDermott,et al.  The Appearance of Phosphenes Elicited Using a Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis. , 2016, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[7]  G. Brindley,et al.  The sensations produced by electrical stimulation of the visual cortex , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[8]  Armand R. Tanguay,et al.  Intraocular Camera for Retinal Prostheses: Optical Design , 2007 .

[9]  E. Peli,et al.  Eye movements of patients with tunnel vision while walking. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[10]  John B. Troy,et al.  Thalamic Visual Prosthesis , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[11]  K. Nishida,et al.  False reaching movements in localization test and effect of auditory feedback in simulated ultra-low vision subjects and patients with retinitis pigmentosa , 2016, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[12]  Yvonne Hsu-Lin Luo,et al.  The use of Argus® II retinal prosthesis by blind subjects to achieve localisation and prehension of objects in 3-dimensional space , 2015, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[13]  Nick Barnes,et al.  Mobility and low contrast trip hazard avoidance using augmented depth , 2015, Journal of neural engineering.

[14]  S. R. Jammalamadaka,et al.  Topics in Circular Statistics , 2001 .

[15]  Ziad M. Hafed,et al.  Oculomotor behavior of blind patients seeing with a subretinal visual implant , 2016, Vision Research.

[16]  D. W. Zimmerman,et al.  Rank Transformations and the Power of the Student T Test and Welch T' Test for Non-Normal Populations with Unequal Variances , 1993 .

[17]  C. Veraart,et al.  Vision rehabilitation with the optic nerve visual prosthesis , 2004, The 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[18]  José-Alain Sahel,et al.  Importance of eye position on spatial localization in blind subjects wearing an Argus II retinal prosthesis. , 2014, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[19]  Takashi Fujikado,et al.  Clinical Trial of Chronic Implantation of Suprachoroidal-Transretinal Stimulation System for Retinal Prosthesis , 2012 .

[20]  Benjamin Patrick McIntosh.  Intraocular and extraocular cameras for retinal prostheses: Effects of foveation by means of visual prosthesis simulation , 2015 .

[21]  Philipp Berens,et al.  CircStat: AMATLABToolbox for Circular Statistics , 2009, Journal of Statistical Software.

[22]  Laura A. Bozeman,et al.  Miami Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired Case Study: Vision Rehabilitation for the First Florida Resident to Receive the Argus II “Bionic Eye” , 2016 .

[23]  Jessy D. Dorn,et al.  Blind subjects implanted with the Argus II retinal prosthesis are able to improve performance in a spatial-motor task , 2010, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[24]  Hugh J. McDermott,et al.  Vision function testing for a suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis: effects of image filtering , 2016, Journal of neural engineering.

[25]  Avi Caspi,et al.  Retinotopic to Spatiotopic Mapping in Blind Patients Implanted With the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis. , 2017, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[26]  F. Rösler,et al.  Spatial Updating Depends on Gaze Direction Even after Loss of Vision , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[27]  J. Rizzo,et al.  The Eye and the Chip: World Congress on Artificial Vision 2004 , 2005 .

[28]  E. M. Klier,et al.  Spatial updating and the maintenance of visual constancy , 2008, Neuroscience.

[29]  Peter J. Bex,et al.  Effects of Peripheral Visual Field Loss on Eye Movements During Visual Search , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[30]  Armand R. Tanguay,et al.  An Intraocular Camera for Retinal Prostheses: Restoring Sight to the Blind , 2010 .

[31]  Gang Luo,et al.  The role of peripheral vision in saccade planning: learning from people with tunnel vision. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[32]  B. Wilhelm,et al.  Subretinal Visual Implant Alpha IMS – Clinical trial interim report , 2015, Vision Research.

[33]  Armand R. Tanguay,et al.  Eye-Tracked Extraocular Camera for Retinal Prostheses , 2015 .

[34]  Angélica Pérez Fornos,et al.  Simulation of artificial vision: IV. Visual information required to achieve simple pointing and manipulation tasks , 2008, Vision Research.

[35]  J. Theeuwes.  Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[36]  Yvonne Hsu-Lin Luo,et al.  The Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System , 2019, Prosthesis.

[37]  Chris E. Williams,et al.  First-in-Human Trial of a Novel Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis , 2014, PloS one.

[38]  Joe Zhong,et al.  The Argus II prosthesis facilitates reaching and grasping tasks: a case series , 2014, BMC Ophthalmology.

[39]  Adele F. Scott,et al.  Determining the Contribution of Retinotopic Discrimination to Localization Performance With a Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis. , 2017, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.