ArticleJournal of vision2025
Perceptual learning of prosthetic vision using video game training.
Article in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Virtual Patients to Predict Perceptual Outcomes for Optogenetic Sight Recovery Technologies.Research square · 2026Article
- Gamification Enhances User Engagement and Task Performance in Prosthetic Vision Testing.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Using Virtual Patients to Predict Perceptual Outcomes for Optogenetic Sight Recovery Technologies.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Fuzzing the brain: automated stress testing for the safety of ML-driven neurostimulation.Journal of neural engineering · 2026Article
- Gamification Enhances User Engagement and Task Performance in Prosthetic Vision Testing.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
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
A key limitation shared by both electronic and optogenetic sight recovery technologies is that they cause simultaneous rather than complementary firing within on- and off-center cells. Here, using "virtual patients"-sighted individuals viewing distorted input-we examine whether gamified training improves the ability to compensate for distortions in neuronal population coding. We measured perceptual learning using dichoptic input, filtered so that regions of the image that produced on-center responses in one eye produced off-center responses in the other eye. The Non-Gaming control group carried out an object discrimination task over five sessions using this filtered input. The Gaming group carried out an additional 25 hours of gamified training using a similarly filtered variant of the video game Fruit Ninja. Both groups showed improvements over time in the object discrimination task. However, there was no significant transfer of learning from the "Fruit Ninja" task to the object discrimination task. The lack of transfer of learning from video game training to object recognition suggests that gamification-based rehabilitation for sight recovery technologies may have limited utility and may be most effective when targeted on learning specific visual tasks.
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.