ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2017
Recognition of a Virtual Scene
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of extended reality (XR) for understanding and augmenting vision loss.Journal of vision · 2023Pooled it
- Development of visual Neuroprostheses: trends and challenges.Bioelectronic medicine · 2018Review
- Advances in retinal prosthesis systems.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In order to effectively aid the blind with optimal low-resolution vision and visual recovery training, pathfinding and recognition tests were performed using a simulated visual prosthetic scene. Simple and complex virtual scenes were built using 3DMAX and Unity, and pixelated to three different resolutions (32 × 32, 64 × 64, and 128 × 128) for real-time pixel processing. Twenty subjects were recruited to complete the pathfinding and object recognition tasks within the scene. The recognition accuracy and time required were recorded and analyzed after the trials. In the simple simulated prosthetic vision (SPV) scene, when the resolution was increased from 32 × 32 to 48 × 48, the object recognition time decreased from 92.19 ± 6.97 to 43.05 ± 6.08 s, and the recognition accuracy increased from 51.22 ± 8.53 to 85.52 ± 4.93%. Furthermore, the number of collisions decreased from 10.00 ± 2.31 to 3.00 ± 0.68. When the resolution was increased from 48 × 48 to 64 × 64, the object recognition time further decreased from 43.05 ± 6.08 to 19.46 ± 3.71 s, the recognition accuracy increased from 85.52 ± 4.93 to 96.89 ± 2.06%, and the number of collisions decreased from 3.00 ± 0.68 to 1.00 ± 0.29. In complex scenes, the time required to recognize the room type decreased from 115.00 ± 23.02 to 68.25 ± 17.23 s, and object recognition accuracy increased from 65.69 ± 9.61 to 80.42 ± 7.70% when the resolution increased from 48 × 48 to 64 × 64. When the resolution increased from 64 × 64 to 128 × 128, the time required to recognize the room type decreased from 68.25 ± 17.23 to 44.88 ± 9.94 s, and object recognition accuracy increased from 80.42 ± 7.71 to 85.69 ± 7.39%. Therefore, one can conclude that there are correlations between pathfinding and recognition. When the resolution increased, the time required for recognition decreased, the recognition accuracy increased, and the number of collisions decreased. Although the subjects could partially complete the recognition task at a resolution of 32 × 32, the recognition time was too long and recognition accuracy was not good enough to identify simple scenes. Complex scenes required a resolution of at least 48 × 48 for complete recognition. In addition, increasing the resolution shortened the time required to identify the type of room, and improved the recognition accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.