Testing Vision Is Not Testing For Vision
- PMID: 33384886
- PMCID: PMC7757632
- DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.13.32
Testing Vision Is Not Testing For Vision
Abstract
Visual prostheses aim to restore, at least to some extent, vision that leads to the type of perception available for sighted patients. Their effectiveness is almost always evaluated using clinical tests of vision. Clinical vision tests are designed to measure the limits of parameters of a functioning visual system. I argue here that these tests are rarely suited to determine the ability of prosthetic devices and other therapies to restore vision. This paper describes and explains many limitations of these evaluations. Prosthetic vision testing often makes use of multiple-alternative forced-choice (MAFC) procedures. Although these paradigms are suitable for many studies, they are frequently problematic in vision restoration evaluation. Two main types of problems are identified: (1) where nuisance variables provide spurious cues that can be learned in repeated training, which is common in prosthetic vision, and thus defeat the purpose of the test; and (2) even though a test is properly designed and performed, it may not actually measure what the researchers believe, and thus the interpretation of results is wrong. Examples for both types of problems are presented. Additional problems arise from confounding factors in the administration of tests are pointed as limitations of current device evaluation. For example, head tracing of magnified objects enlarged to compensate for the system's low resolution, in distinction from the scanning head (camera) movements with which users of prosthetic devices expand the limited field of view. Because of these problems, the ability to perform satisfactorily on the clinical tests is necessary but insufficient to prove vision restoration, therefore, additional tests are needed. I propose some directions to pursue in such testing.
Translational relevance: Numerous prosthetic devices are being developed and introduced to the market. Proving the utility of these devices is crucial for regulatory and even for post market acceptance, which so far has largely failed, in my opinion. Potential reasons for the failures despite success in regulatory testing and directions for designing improved testing are provided. It is hoped that improved testing will guide improved designs of future prosthetic systems and other vision restoration approaches.
Keywords: gene therapy; optogenetic; prosthetic vision; sensory substitution; spatial perception; stem cell; vision restoration; visual perception.
Copyright 2020 The Authors.
Conflict of interest statement
Disclosure: E. Peli, has two patents and a patent application on image processing for visual prostheses, all assigned to the Schepens Eye Research Institute
Figures
![Figure 1.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/7757632/bin/tvst-9-13-32-f001.gif)
![Figure 2.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/7757632/bin/tvst-9-13-32-f002.gif)
Similar articles
-
PVGAN: a generative adversarial network for object simplification in prosthetic vision.J Neural Eng. 2022 Sep 7;19(5). doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/ac8acf. J Neural Eng. 2022. PMID: 35981530
-
Advances in Neuroscience, Not Devices, Will Determine the Effectiveness of Visual Prostheses.Semin Ophthalmol. 2021 May 19;36(4):168-175. doi: 10.1080/08820538.2021.1887902. Epub 2021 Mar 18. Semin Ophthalmol. 2021. PMID: 33734937 Review.
-
Word recognition: re-thinking prosthetic vision evaluation.J Neural Eng. 2018 Oct;15(5):055003. doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/aac663. Epub 2018 May 21. J Neural Eng. 2018. PMID: 29781807
-
Artificial vision: needs, functioning, and testing of a retinal electronic prosthesis.Prog Brain Res. 2009;175:317-32. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(09)17522-2. Prog Brain Res. 2009. PMID: 19660665 Review.
-
A quantitative analysis of head movement behaviour during visual acuity assessment under prosthetic vision simulation.J Neural Eng. 2007 Mar;4(1):S108-23. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/4/1/S13. Epub 2007 Feb 26. J Neural Eng. 2007. PMID: 17325409
Cited by
-
Hybrid Neural Autoencoders for Stimulus Encoding in Visual and Other Sensory Neuroprostheses.Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2022 Dec;35:22671-22685. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2022. PMID: 37719469 Free PMC article.
-
Towards aSmart Bionic Eye: AI-powered artificial vision for the treatment of incurable blindness.J Neural Eng. 2022 Dec 7;19(6):10.1088/1741-2552/aca69d. doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/aca69d. J Neural Eng. 2022. PMID: 36541463 Free PMC article.
-
Factors affecting two-point discrimination in Argus II patients.Front Neurosci. 2022 Aug 24;16:901337. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.901337. eCollection 2022. Front Neurosci. 2022. PMID: 36090266 Free PMC article.
-
Sequential epiretinal stimulation improves discrimination in simple shape discrimination tasks only.J Neural Eng. 2022 Jun 9;19(3):10.1088/1741-2552/ac7326. doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/ac7326. J Neural Eng. 2022. PMID: 35613043 Free PMC article.
-
Retinal Implantation of Electronic Vision Prostheses to Treat Retinitis Pigmentosa: A Systematic Review.Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2021 Aug 12;10(10):8. doi: 10.1167/tvst.10.10.8. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2021. PMID: 34383874 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Pizlo Z. Perception viewed as an inverse problem. Vision Res. 2001; 41(24): 3145–3161. - PubMed
-
- Meijer PB. An experimental system for auditory image representations. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1992; 39(2): 112–121. - PubMed
-
- Grant P, Spencer L, Arnoldussen A, et al. .. The functional performance of the Brainport V100 device in persons who are profoundly blind. J Vis Impair Blind. 2016; 110(2): 77–88.
-
- Arnold G, Auvray M.. Tactile recognition of visual stimuli: specificity versus generalization of perceptual learning. Vision Res. 2018; 152: 40–50. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources