ReviewEye and brain2025
Visual Prostheses in the Era of Artificial Intelligence Technology.
Review in Eye and brain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Over the past few decades, technological advancements have transformed invasive visual prostheses from theoretical concepts into real-world applications. However, functional outcomes remain limited, especially in visual acuity. This review aims to summarize current developments in retinal and cortical prostheses (RCPs) and critically assess the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in advancing these systems. Purpose: To describe current RCPs and provide a systematic review on image and signal processing algorithms designed for improved clinical outcomes. Patients and Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature related to AI subserving prosthetic vision, using mainly PubMed, but also, Elicit, a dedicated AI-based reference research assistant. A total of 455 studies were screened on PubMed, of which 23 were retained for inclusion. An additional 5 studies were identified and included through Elicit. Results: The analysis of current RCPs highlights various limitations affecting the quality of the visual flow provided by current artificial vision. Indeed, the 28 reviewed studies on AI covered two applications for RCPs including extraction of saliency in camera captured images, and consistency between electrical stimulation and perceived phosphenes. A total of 14 out of 28 studies involved the use of artificial neural networks, of which 12 included model training. Evaluation with data from a visual prosthesis was conducted in 7 studies, including 1 that was prospectively assessed with a human RCP. Validation with empirical data from human or animal data was performed in 22 out of 28 studies. Out of these, 15 were validated using simulated prosthetic vision. Finally, out of 22 studies leveraging a mathematical model for phosphenes perception, 14 used a symmetrical oversimplified modeling. Conclusion: AI algorithms show promise in optimizing prosthetic vision, particularly through enhanced image saliency extraction and stimulation strategies. However, most current studies are based on simulations. Further development and validation in real-world settings, especially through clinical testing with blind patients, are essential to assess their true effectiveness.
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.