Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31167653›Full record

ReviewMilitary Medical Research2019

Contemporary approaches to visual prostheses.

Rebecca M Mirochnik, John S Pezaris

Erratum issuedOpen access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Military Medical Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Motion perception with visual prostheses.Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. An update on visual prosthesis.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2023
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca M MirochnikDepartment of Bioengineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
John S PezarisDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. pezaris.john@mgh.harvard.edu.
Harvard University · USNortheastern University · US

Funding

Phosphene Characteristics and Artificial SightR01EY027888 · NEI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI PEZARIS, JOHN S. · 2018 to 2022
$2.0M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY027888
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual prostheses serve to restore visual function following acquired blindness. Acquired blindness (as opposed to congenital blindness) has many causes, including diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa, glaucoma, and macular degeneration, or trauma such as caused by automobile accident or blast damage from explosions. Many of the blindness-causing diseases target the retina or other ocular structure. Often, despite the loss of sensitivity to light, the remainder of the visual pathway is still functional, enabling electrical devices to deliver effective and meaningful visual information to the brain via arrays of electrodes. These arrays can be placed in any part of the early visual pathway, such as the retina, optic nerve, lateral geniculate nucleus, or visual cortex. A camera or other imaging source is used to drive electrical stimulation of remaining healthy cells or structures to create artificial vision and provide restoration of function. In this review, each approach to visual prostheses is described, including advantages and disadvantages as well as assessments of the current state of the art. Most of the work to-date has been targeting stimulation of (a) the retina, with three devices approved for general use and two more in clinical testing; (b) the lateral geniculate nucleus, with efforts still in the pre-clinical stage; and (c) the cortex, with three devices in clinical testing and none currently approved for general use despite the longest history of investigation of the three major approaches. Each class of device has different medical indications, and different levels of invasiveness required for implantation. All contemporary devices deliver relatively poor vision. There has been remarkable progress since the first proof-of-concept demonstration that used stimulation of the primary visual cortex, with the field exploring all viable options for restoration of function. Much of the progress has been recent, driven by advances in microelectronics and biocompatibility. With three devices currently approved for general use in various parts of the world, and a handful of additional devices well along in the pipeline toward approval, prospects for wide deployment of a device-based therapy to treat acquired blindness are good.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyVisual ProsthesisBlindnessClinical Trials as TopicHumansOptic NerveVisual CortexArtificial visionBlindnessVisual prosthesis

Identifiers

PMID31167653
PMCPMC6549329
OpenAlexW2948931117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.