Performance of real‐world functional vision tasks by blind subjects improves after implantation with the Argus® II retinal prosthesis system

• Published in: Clinical & experimental ophthalmology Vol. 45; no. 2; pp. 152 - 159
• Main Authors: Dagnelie, Gislin, Christopher, Punita, Arditi, Aries, Cruz, Lyndon, Duncan, Jacque L, Ho, Allen C, Olmos de Koo, Lisa C, Sahel, José‐Alain, Stanga, Paulo E, Thumann, Gabriele, Wang, Yizhong, Arsiero, Maura, Dorn, Jessy D, Greenberg, Robert J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Australia Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.03.2017; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: activities of daily living; Blindness - physiopathology; Blindness - rehabilitation; clinical trial; Electrodes, Implanted; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Original; outcome measures; Prospective Studies; Prosthesis Design; Retina - physiopathology; retinal prosthesis; Visual Acuity; visual performance; Visual Prosthesis; Visually Impaired Persons - rehabilitation; Walking; clinical trial; retinal prosthesis; visual performance; outcome measures; activities of daily living
• ISSN: 1442-6404; 1442-9071
• DOI: 10.1111/ceo.12812

Background The main objective of this study was to test Argus II subjects on three real‐world functional vision tasks. Design The study was designed to be randomized and prospective. Testing was conducted in a hospital/research laboratory setting at the various participating centres. Participants Twenty eight Argus II subjects, all profoundly blind, participated in this study. Methods Subjects were tested on the three real‐world functional vision tasks: Sock Sorting, Sidewalk Tracking and Walking Direction Discrimination task Main Outcome Measures For the Sock Sorting task, percentage correct was computed based on how accurately subjects sorted the piles on a cloth‐covered table and on a bare table. In the Sidewalk Tracking task, an ‘out of bounds’ count was recorded, signifying how often the subject veered away from the test course. During the Walking Direction Discrimination task, subjects were tested on the number of times they correctly identified the direction of testers walking across their field of view. Results The mean percentage correct OFF versus ON for the Sock Sorting task was found to be significantly different for both testing conditions (t‐test, P < 0.01). On the Sidewalk Tracking task, subjects performed significantly better with the system ON than they did with the system OFF (t‐test, P < 0.05). Eighteen (18) of 27 subjects (67%) performed above chance with the system ON, and 6 (22%) did so with system OFF on the Walking Direction Discrimination task. Conclusions Argus II subjects performed better on all three tasks with their systems ON than they did with their systems OFF.