ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2024
Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials in prosthetic vision and simulated visual reduction.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in Technology-Assisted Visual Rehabilitation Therapies: Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Next-generation smart ophthalmic biomaterials: From passive response to active interaction and closed-loop control.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo quantitatively evaluate visual evoked potentials (VEPs) in prosthetic vision and simulated visual reduction. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Four blind patients implanted with the Argus II retinal prosthesis and seven sighted controls participated. VEPs were recorded with pattern-reversal stimuli (2 cycles of a horizontal square wave grating, 0.1 cycle/degree) at 1.07 reversals per second (rps) for Argus II subjects and 3.37 rps for controls. Argus II patients had both eyes patched, viewing the pattern solely through their implant. Controls viewed the pattern monocularly, either with their best-corrected vision or with simulated visual reduction (field restriction, added blur or reduced display contrast).
resultsVEPs recorded in Argus II patients displayed a similar shape to normal VEPs when controls viewed the pattern without simulated visual reduction. In sighted controls, adding blur significantly delayed the P100 peak time by 8.7 ms, 95% CI (0.9, 16.6). Reducing stimulus contrast to 32% and 6% of full display contrast significantly decreased P100 amplitude to 55% (37%, 82%) and 20% (13%, 31%), respectively. Restriction on the field of view had no impact on either the amplitude or the peak latency of P100.
conclusionThe early visual cortex in retinal prosthesis users remains responsive to retinal input, showing a similar response profile to that of sighted controls. Pattern-reversal VEP offers valuable insights for objectively evaluating artificial vision therapy systems (AVTSs) when selecting, fitting and training implant users, but the uncertainties in the exact timing and location of electrode stimulation must be considered when interpreting the results.
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.