Sight restoration for individuals with profound blindness
Richard Normann, Ph.D., Professor of
Ophthalmology
John A. Moran Eye Center, University of
Utah
This
past decade has seen a gradual shift in vision research from basic studies
of the cell biology and neuroscience of the visual pathways to application
of this knowledge base to restoring sight to the profoundly blind.
This shift has taken two broad directions: human engineered or
neuroprosthetic solutions, and biologically inspired solutions.
|
New approaches to site restoration for the profoundly blind
|
|
Human engineered / Neuroprosthetic
approaches
|
Biological approaches
|
|
Cortically Based (Utahs approach)
|
Retinal Transplantation
|
|
Retinally Based
|
RPE transplantation
|
|
Optic Nerve Based
|
Growth Factors
|
|
|
Gene Therapy
|
As
this informational web-site is focused on the human engineered approach,
recent progress in the biological approaches will only be described
briefly below. Further, as
Utahs interests are focused on a cortical neuroprosthesis, this review
of the retinal and optic nerve approaches will also be intentionally
brief.
Overview of human engineered and biological approaches to sight
restoration
Before describing
Utahs cortically based visual neuroporsthesis system, we will briefly
describe other human engineered approaches to sight restoration.
Retinal
based visual neuroprosthetic research. Over the past few years, the
research efforts of an increasing number of laboratories around the world
have been committed to the development of a retinal based visual
neuroprosthesis. The lay media has recently featured this work on
television and in the press, and has created a great deal of public
interest in the potential of this neuroprosthetic technology.
This retinal approach has taken
two basic directions: an epiretinal approach where an electrode array will
be placed on the vitreal surface in an effort to stimulate ensembles of
ganglion cells (or possibly bipolar cells), and a subretinal approach
where an electrode array is intended to be implanted between the retina
and the pigment epithelium and extrinsic currents are intended to
stimulate either remnant photoreceptor inner segments, or bipolar cells.
The epiretinal approach
is being aggressively pursued in America by teams at Harvard/MIT [23]
and at Johns Hopkins/the Mann Foundation [24]
. A new comer on the
scene is a retinal neuroprosthesis program being developed at the Kresge
Eye Institute, under the direction of Gary Abrams. This approach is also being aggressively pursued in Germany
with financial support from the German government [25]
. While these teams
have yet to publish their efforts to develop a long lasting and
efficacious electrode array that could realistically be used as a chronic
retinal implant, the American researchers have performed pilot retinal
stimulation experiments in human volunteers.
The Harvard/MIT and the Hopkins groups have shown that passing
transretinal electrical currents can evoke visual percepts in individuals
with retinitis pigmentosa, and both have shown that very simple patterned
stimulation evokes elementary patterned percepts in these volunteers [26]
. The Harvard/MIT and
the German epiretinal projects have also focused on developing surgical
procedures that will ensure that the implant will be closely apposed to
the retina (i.e., removal of all remnant vitreous humor without damaging
the delicate retinal tissue). The
German counterparts have also directed much of their efforts and research
dollars on a retinal encoder system that will be used to remap
visual input into appropriate patterns of electrical retinal stimulation [25]
. Because of various
non-visuotopic mapping problems, such a video encoding / neural stimulator
system is likely to be needed in any visual neuroprosthesis system
(retinal or cortical).
The subretinal approach
was originally proposed by Chow [27]
in America, and it has been adopted by another German team led by
Zrenner [28]
. The original idea
suggested that a suspension of non-powered microphotodiodes could be
inserted into the subretinal space, and that these photodiodes could
passively replace the function of lost rods and cones by directly
stimulating second order neurons in the retinal pathway.
Chow and Zrenner have shown that flat silicon discs can be
implanted subretinally [29]
, and have developed surgical techniques to achieve this.
Recently, both groups seem to have come to understand that silicon
photodiodes are many orders of magnitude less sensitive than rods and
cones, exclusive of the difficulty of transducing electronic currents into
ionic ones and of stimulating the remnant neurons.
Both groups seem to be acknowledging that the subretinal implant
must be externally powered. All players in the retinal game have begun
working with a variety of in vivo
and in vitro retinal models in their efforts to develop electrode arrays
that can effectively and selectively stimulate retinal pathways [26]
.
An
optic nerve based visual neuroprosthesis. A recent study has described phosphene generation via
optic nerve stimulation [30]
. These experiments
were conducted in a blind human volunteer who was chronically implanted
with an extracellular cuff electrode that surrounded the optic
nerve, and which contained four surface electrodes. Stimulation with various current levels through different
combinations of electrodes evoked a variety of spatially distributed
phosphenes. However, the
researchers were unable to obtain a rational visuotopically organized
relation between stimulation parameters and evoked phosphenes.
This approach may show promise if an ultra-high electrode count
array of penetrating electrodes were to be implanted in the optic nerve.
We have implanted
an array of 100 electrodes with varying length shanks in the sciatic nerve
of the cat (the Utah Slant Array, or USA) [31]. Because this array architecture distributes the active tips
of the electrodes uniformly throughout the entire nerve, we were able to
selectively drive individual muscle groups [31]
. Although
principally engineered as
a peripheral
nerve interface,
such an array might form the basis for an optic nerve based
visual prosthesis.
The Utah, cortically based visual neuroprosthesis system
With the successful development of a penetrating microelectrode array
for implantation in the brain, artificial vision is ready to step beyond
the original systems built in the 1960s. The development of the Utah
artificial vision system is being guided by four principles: 1) long-term
safety and biocompatibility of the implant, 2) vision capable of
navigation without a guide dog, family member or friend, 3) vision capable
of reading printed text, and 4) a prosthesis that is as unobtrusive as
possible. As a general high-level description, the Utah Artificial Vision
system will consist of a micro-video camera hidden in a pair of eyeglasses
to transform light in the visual scene into electrical signals, signal
processing electronics to convert these signals into patterns of
electrical stimulation for the brain as well as a power source carried in
a shirt pocket, a totally implanted multichannel stimulator with power and
data to be delivered to the implant system via a radio-frequency telemetry
link, and an electrode array with 625 microelectrodes.
 |
| Figure 1: Artist conception of an artificial vision
system. |
Pros and Cons of different approaches to sight restoration
The Pros and Cons
of these human engineered approaches: Research in visual
neuroprosthetics falls into the four general camps outlined above. Each has advantages and disadvantages that are summarized on
the following page. It is clear that all four implant sites have common
problems and advantages, and some that are unique.
Arguments can be advanced in support of each approach.
One common problem is that all approaches are expected to be most
beneficial to those with acquired rather than congenital, complete
blindness. However, the
observation that a cortical approach might provide an effective therapy
for most sources of blindness (and the only therapeutic approach for many)
is a compelling argument to support this approach to a cortically based
visual prosthesis.
| Visual cortex approach: |
|
| Pros |
Cons |
 | The only therapeutic approach for individuals with
non-functional retinas and/or optic nerves. |
 | Implant site is robust and protected by skull |
 | Easy surgical access (demonstrated) |
 | High density electrode implantation has been
demonstrated |
 | Phosphene thresholds are low (in 1-10 microamp range) |
 | Electrode array architecture is likely to be well suited
for application in other sensory or motor regions of the
cerebral cortex. |
|
 | Stimulation site far from photoreceptors (no retinal or
thalmic processing) |
 | Possibly poor visuotopic organization |
 | Problems of multiple feature representations in V1
(color, lines, motion, ocular dominance) |
 | Societal phobias about "brain implant" |
 | Significant consequences of surgical complications. |
|
| Epiretinal Approach |
|
| Pros |
Cons |
 | Stimulating close to photoreceptors so one can take
advantage of native processing power in thalamus and
cortex. |
 | Surgical complications not necessarily as significant as
cortical approach. |
|
 | Requires functional optic nerve pathway. |
 | May stimulate optic nerve fibers rather than cell
bodies: this will greatly complicate visuotopic
organization. |
 | Hard to imagine how sacadic eye motions will not cause
very high sheer loads on implanted arrays (and eventual
dislodging of array). |
 | Difficult surgical access. |
 | Difficult to adhere electrode array to retina. |
|
| Subretinal approach: |
|
| Pros |
Cons |
 | Stimulating closest to photoreceptors so one can take
advantage of retinal, thalmic and cortical signal
processing. |
 | If bipolar cells can be directly stimulated, retinotopic
organization should be preserved. |
 | Surgical complications not necessarily as significant as
cortical approach. |
|
 | Requires functional retina and optic nerve pathway to
convey signals to cortex. |
 | Blockage of nutrients from choroid to remnant retina by
the implant |
 | Very complex surgical access |
 | Can't stimulate cells passively with microimplants
(requires external power) |
|
| Optic Nerve approach: |
|
| Pros |
Cons |
 | Surgical complications not necessarily as significant as
cortical approach. |
|
 | Requires functional optic nerve pathway. |
 | Visuotopic organization requires placing electrodes at
many closely spaced regions of the optic nerve. |
 | Will require complex electrode array to provide any
useful patterned vision. |
 | Very difficult surgical access. |
|
|
|
The Utah visual neuroprosthesis program
Work is ongoing at the John Moran Laboratories at the
University of Utah to develop the cortically based visual prosthesis
system described above. The
program conducts research in the following broad areas:
 | Development
of improved electrode array architectures |
 | Evaluation
of long term biocompatibility of implant systems |
 | Basic
investigations of information processing in the retina and visual
cortex |
 | Development
of support instrumentation for a cortical neuroprosthesis |
 | Conduct
of experimentation in human volunteers |
History of visual neuroprosthetics
The
historical foundations for a cortically based visual prosthesis.
The concept of cortically based artificial vision had its origins
in studies of the functional architecture of the cerebral cortex that were
started in the early twentieth century, and were pursued by Wilder
Penfield. Penfield and
Rasmussen [12]
observed the behavioral consequences of electrically stimulating
various regions of cerebral cortex and noted that electrical stimulation
of the surface of the visual cortex generally evoked the perception of
points of light (called phosphenes) at specific regions in space.
He also observed that the location of the phosphenes in front of
the observer appeared to be deterministically related to the region of
primary visual cortex which was being electrically stimulated (a
visuotopic organization). These
preliminary observations on the visuotopic organization of visual cortex
have been extended by many others using electrical stimulation of human
visual cortex [13-16]
, by recording of receptive fields in primate visual cortex [17-19]
, and recently validated in humans with fMRI [7].
The
observations of the visuotopic organization of electrically evoked
phosphenes have led a number of investigators to propose that electrical
stimulation of visual cortex via arrays of electrodes might provide the
profoundly blind with a limited form of functional vision.
Subsequent experiments in the late sixties and early seventies by
Brindley [16]
, Dobelle [15]
, Pollen [14]
, and their co-workers demonstrated that a field of individual
phosphenes could be evoked by stimulating visual cortex with an array of
electrodes implanted subdurally over its surface.
These studies confirmed the visuotopic organization of visual
cortex, and demonstrated that subjects could assimilate information that
was delivered to the visual cortex by electrical currents passed via
groups of electrodes. Dobelles
subjects were able to read phosphene evoked Braille characters at a faster
rate than they could using their tactile sense.
However, it was also learned that currents in the milliampere range
were required to evoke individual phosphenes, and that currents passed
through groups of electrodes that were spaced too close to neighboring
electrodes produced highly non-linear interactions between the location
and character of the evoked phosphenes. It became clear from these experiments that stimulating
visual cortex via an array of surface electrodes would not be an effective
means to produce a useful visual sense in individuals with total
blindness.
Recent
experiments by Schmidt et al. [13,
20]
have caused renewed interest in cortically based visual
neuroprosthetics. In their
most recent experiments, they chronically stimulated visual cortex of a
profoundly blind human volunteer with groups of microelectrodes that were
designed to penetrate the cortex to the level of its normal thalamic
input. The Schmidt et al.
study is the most complete to date that explores the psychophysical
percepts produced by intracortical microstimulation.
It
has long been known that neural stimulation via penetrating electrodes
occurs with electrical currents that are much smaller than those used to
excite neurons via surface stimulation. Schmidt and his coworkers
validated this observation and demonstrated that phosphenes could be
evoked with currents that were orders of magnitude lower than those used
with surface stimulation (their lowest thresholds were in the 1 to 10
microampere region). More
importantly, they showed that simple patterned perceptions could be evoked
by current stimulation via small groups of these microelectrodes (simple
lines were evoked by simultaneously stimulating a set of six
electrodes that were close to each other).
While their data was anecdotal (in
that it came
from a single subject), they also demonstrated that
electrical stimulation of pairs of electrodes that were separated by 250
microns often evoked two discriminable percepts, while stimulation of
electrodes separated by 500 microns almost always evoked two discriminable
phosphenes. Unfortunately, the electrode arrays used by Schmidt et al.
were too sparse to allow them to answer the key question upon which a
cortical approach to artificial vision must be based: does patterned
electrical stimulation via a high electrode count electrode array evoke
discriminable patterned percepts, or nondiscriminable blobs of light?
If this psychophysical experiment can be performed, and the former
result maintains, the physiological foundation of cortically based
artificial vision could be established.
In
order to answer this critical question (and many others associated with
phosphene psychophysics), researchers need a new class of tools: arrays of
microelectrodes that can be safely implanted into the visual pathways, and
that will allow periodic injections of electrical currents at many closely
spaced sites. Such arrays
could eventually also form the cornerstone of visual neuroprosthetic
systems. It therefore is
clear that progress in cortically based artificial vision systems is
directly linked to progress in the development of high electrode count
microelectrode arrays, and over the past decade, such arrays have been
developed [21, 22]
.
Summary of Utahs accomplishments
Because of the importance of the neural interface in a visual prosthesis,
much of this section will focus on a penetrating cortical electrode array
of our own design: the Utah Electrode Array, or UEA. We will discuss considerations that were used in its design,
how the array can be implanted in the visual cortex, and its
biocompatibility as revealed by histological and electrophysiological
experiments. Finally, we will
summarize psychophysical experiments we have performed that provide rough
estimates about the number of electrodes that may be required to restore
some functional vision in an individual with profound blindness.
The historical motivation behind much of what we have developed at the
University of Utah has been to create experimental systems that will allow
researchers to better understand the vertebrate visual system though
electrophysiological and behavioral experiments. These systems have been used for many years in cats and
primates, and we now look forward to applying them to study human
psychophysical questions that directly relate to the development of a
cortically based vision neuroprosthetic system.
A.
Electrode Arrays
The
cornerstone of a visual neuroprosthesis is the interface between the
functioning neurons in the visual pathways and implanted devices that can
selectively excite these neurons. The
remaining elements in such a neuroprosthesis will require modifying
existing technologies, and as such, are simply matters of engineering
development. This neural
interface must individually stimulate a very large number of neurons that
have retained function even though more distal neurons have been
irreparably damaged by the etiology of the blindness. This interface will bypass the malfunctioning distal
components in the visual pathway and directly excite neural pathways that
are proximal to the implant site. Recent
work at the University of Utah (Jones,
Campbell et al. 1992)
, at the University of Michigan by Wise et al. (Hoogerwerf
and Wise 1994)
, and Stanford University (Kewley, Hills et al. 1997)
has focused on the use of silicon as an electrode material from
which high electrode count, penetrating electrode arrays can be
fabricated. Silicon is highly
biocompatible (Stensaas
and Stensaas 1978; Yuen, Agnew et al. 1987; Schmidt, Horch et al. 1993)
, can be micromachined using standard microfabrication
technologies, and can incorporate integrated electronics.
The Michigan and Stanford electrode arrays have been built to take
advantage of the planar photolithographic manufacturing techniques used in
the semiconductor industry, while the Utah arrays were designed from
the ground up to meet the needs of a neural interface for the cerebral
cortex. As such, new
manufacturing techniques had to be developed in order to build this
device. These techniques have been described elsewhere (Jones,
Campbell et al. 1992)
.
 |
|
The
Utah Electrode Array (UEA), shown above, provides a multichannel interface
to the visual cortex. It has
a large number of 1.5mm long electrodes (typically 100 in a 10 x 10 square
grid) that project out from a very thin (0.2mm) substrate and that are
separated from each other by 0.4mm. The tips of the electrodes are
metalized with platinum to facilitate electronic to ionic transduction.
As the arrays substrate must rest on the cortical surface,
minimizing its thickness (its super-cortical profile) was an important
design consideration: if it was too thin, it might break upon insertion,
if it was too thick, the dura and the skull would produce a constant
downward force on the array, tending to push it into the cortex.
The large number of penetrating
electrodes in the UEA presents a very large surface area to the cortex and
the implanted array tends to self anchor to the cortical tissues.
Such an array has the strong advantage that it integrates
with the cortical tissues and, therefore, floats with respect to the
cranium. As the cortex moves
due to respiration and blood pumping, or to displacements in the skeletal
musculature, the array moves with it, thereby producing little or no
relative motion between the electrode tips and the neurons near its active
tips. This design feature
therefore, produces an extremely stable interface with the surrounding
neurons.
The
penetrating electrodes in an implanted array must compromise as little
cortical volume as possible (ideally zero).
Thus, each needle must be made as slender as possible yet retain
sufficient strength to withstand the implantation procedure.
Further, consistent with concept of blunt dissection used by
neurosurgeons, these penetrating structures should displace the tissues
they are inserted into rather than cut their way through them.
Thus, the needle should be conical and have a very sharp tip rather
than a planar or knife-like geometry.
They must also be strong enough so that they are not deflected by
the tissues they are inserted into. The
needle electrodes in the UEA meet these criteria and are about 80 microns
in diameter at their bases. They
taper to a sharpened tip that has a radius of curvature of two to three
microns. Shown below is an
electron micrograph of the tips of these electrodes.
Electrodes with these dimensions have been shown to be sufficiently
strong to withstand insertion into materials that are considerably less
compliant than cortical tissue (cork, balsa wood, even egg shell).
These electrodes do not bend during the insertion process, and they
only displace about 4% of the cortical volume into which they are
inserted.
 |
|
Each
electrode is electrically isolated from its neighboring electrodes with a
moat of glass that surrounds each electrodes base.
Each electrode has a bonding pad on the rear surface of the
substrate. Conduction of
signals along the length of the silicon needles is achieved by the doped
silicon used in its fabrication. The
entire electrode array (with the exception of the platinum coated tips) is
insulated with a 2 micron thick coat of silicon nitride.
An electrical connection is made to each electrode by bonding an
insulated 25 micron diameter wire to each bond pad, and connecting these
wires to a percutaneous connector. The
rear of the array (with bonded lead wires) is encapsulated with a silicone
elastomer. Electrode
impedances (measured with a 100 nanoamp, 1 kHz sine wave current) are
typically in the 100 to 500 kW
range.
We
have used both chronic and acute arrays in our experiments.
The acute array has all 100 electrodes brought out to a small
printed circuit board containing four, 26-pin IDC connectors.
Our original chronic system had only eleven of the 100 potentially
functional electrodes brought out to a Microtech connector via eleven, 25
micron diameter, platinum-iridium lead wires (the twelfth was a
platinum-iridium reference wire). Our
most recent design brings out 38 of the 100 electrodes to a custom made
connector. The connector is
integrated into a titanium pedestal that is mounted with titanium bone
screws to the cranium. The figure below shows a photograph of this
tulip version of our chronic electrode assembly.
 |
|
When
we have received IRB approaval to perform human experimenation, the
UEA will be used in most of our acute and chronic work.
However, we will also conduct a series of acute experiments using
our Utah Slant Array, or USA. These
experiments will explore the relationship between phosphene thresholds and
electrode shank length. The
USA is ideally suited for these experiments, as it contains electrodes
that vary in shank length from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm.
An electron micrograph of the USA is shown in the figure below.
The USA is virtually identical in all aspects to the UEA, except in
the varying length of the electrode shanks.
 |
|
B.
Surgical Issues: implanting high count electrode arrays
A
cortically based visual prosthesis will be a highly invasive system that,
eventually, must contain active integrated electronic circuitry.
While relatively large electronic and mechanical systems have been
implanted in the body (pacemakers, artificial joints, and the cochlear
prosthesis), miniaturized devices of the mechanical and electronic
complexity of the UEA have yet to be implanted on a long term basis in any
part of the human body, much less the brain.
Whether the implant site is intended to be the cortex or the retina
(or the optic nerve (Veraart, Raftopoulos et al. 1998)
, safe and effective surgical procedures that are cost-effective
must be developed and validated in animal models before they are attempted
in human volunteers.
The
Utah researchers have developed new surgical techniques and tools that
enable the UEA to be implanted in cortical tissues.
Even though the individual electrodes of the UEA are extremely
sharp, early attempts at implanting large numbers of them into the visual
cortex only deformed the cortical surface and resulted in incomplete
implantation. Further, the
compression of the cortical surface produced by slow mechanical insertion
can injure blood vessels, causing intracranial hemorrhage and cortical
edema.
Because
the brain is a viscoelastic material, it will behaves in a much more rigid
fashion if the electrodes can be inserted into the cortex at a very high
velocity. We have developed a
unique surgical instrument based upon this concept that appears to
circumvent the above mentioned problems: a system that rapidly inserts the
UEA into the cortex (Rousche
and Normann 1992)
. A drawing of the
pneumatically actuated insertion tool we have developed is shown below.
Array insertion is achieved by a transfer of momentum between an
accelerated piston, and an insertion mass that rests against the
back-side of the electrode array which is to undergo implantation.
When the momentum transfer takes place, the array is rapidly
inserted into the cortical tissues in about 200 microseconds.
The insertion is so rapid that the viscoelastic properties of the
cortical tissues cause the cortex to experience only slight mechanical
dimpling and the insertion is generally complete.
Occasionally implantation of the UEA through surface vasculature is
accompanied by a small amount of subpial bleeding, but this typically
resolves itself, and single unit recordings of neural activity can often
be made within hours after the surgical procedures are completed. The complete implantation procedure in a cat (from anesthesia
induction to recovery) takes about four hours from initial incision to
final closure.
 |
|
The success of
these implantations is a result of refinements we have recently made in
our surgical procedure. The chronic technique we have used is shown in the
figure below, and differs from our original technique by using two layers
of Teflon to minimize adhesions of the back of the array to the dura, and
the dura to the materials used to close our surgical access.
The lower Teflon layer is cut from a 0.5 mil PTFT sheet and the
upper layer is Artificial Dura manufactured by W. R. Gore and
Associates.
The chronic closing is achieved by covering the array with a Teflon
patch the size of the dural flap, closing the flap with 3-6 sutures,
covering the exposed dural flap with an Artificial Dura patch slightly
larger than the cranial opening, and tucked under the edges of the cranial
opening. The opening is then
sealed with a thin coat of silicone elastomer and, after fully setting, a
layer of dental acrylic. This
refined surgical procedure has been fully described elsewhere (Maynard,
Fernandez et al. 2000)
.
 |
|
C.
Chronic histology
A neuroprosthetic system must be
implanted into the nervous system and remain fully functional for periods
that will eventually extend to many decades.
This consideration places unique constraints on the architecture,
materials, and surgical techniques used in the implementation of the
neural interface. Inattention
to any of these issues can result in chronic inflammatory responses around
the implant site and generate a thick capsule surrounding each electrode. Because the UEA is a unique implantable structure, the
consequences of its presence in the body for extended durations must be
evaluated. We have studied
its biocompatibility using basic histological and electrophysiological
techniques in a feline model.
The
materials of which the UEA is built: silicon, silicon nitride, silicon
dioxide, platinum, titanium, tungsten, and silicone are known to be well
tolerated by the CNS (Stensaas
and Stensaas 1978; Edell, Toi et al. 1992)
. Our six month
histological experiments support this notion (Schmidt, Horch et al. 1993)
. The figures below
show hematoxylin and eosin stained sections of such tissue.
A thin capsule (2-5 microns thick) forms around each electrode
track, but neuronal cell bodies are typically seen in close apposition to
the electrode tracks (Turner,
Shain et al. 1999)
. In fact, in sections
where the tracks are similar in diameter to blood vessels, it is often
difficult to tell a track from a vessel.
These figures illustrate that the electrodes of the UEA are not
displaced laterally by the cortical tissues during implantation.
The histological photographs below are examples of a particularly
benign tissue response. However, we also have histological samples showing gliosis,
buildup of fibrotic tissue between the array and the meninges, subtle
array displacement in the cortex, and the presence of a small number of
red blood cells (or hemosiderin) in
some tracks. While the
histology we have performed to date supports the use of the UEA in acute
human experimentation, before we can consider its use in chronic
applications, more work will be done to ensure that histological findings
like those shown in the histology below can be achieved on every
implantation. Specifically, while the hematoxylin and eosin stain has been
useful in the gross cytological analyses we have performed to date, it is
wholly inappropriate as the sole means of assessing biocompatibility.
We must extend these studies and use immunofluorescent techniques
for evaluating structures and specific cell types such as capillaries,
astrocytes, macrophages, microglia, meningeal cells and endothelia, all of
which have been shown to play a role in the brain host response to
biomaterial implantation regardless of the material employed. Our
preliminary histological observations with hematoxylin and eosin have been
elaborated upon in a recent study by Maynard on the long term consequences
of UEA implantation (Maynard,
Fernandez et al. 2000)
.
 |
|
D.
Neuronal recordings
Acute recording capability
An
excellent index of the biocompatibility of a cortical implant is its
ability to record single- and/or multi-unit activity from the neurons near
the electrode tip for prolonged periods of time.
If the materials used in the array, or the implantation techniques
are not biocompatible, neuronal processes close to the electrode track
will degenerate and it will not be possible to record single-unit
activity. However field
potential activity located far from the electrode tracks might still be
recorded from functioning neurons, and such neurons may still be
stimulated effectively in a neuroprosthetic application.
We
have recorded responses from the UEA in both acute and chronically
implanted animals to better understand its short and long term
biocompatibility. Specimen
responses with high, medium and low signal-to-noise ratios that were
evoked by a bar of light moving across the receptive fields of visual
cortical units are shown below. To
generalize these findings, we have tabulated below the recording quality
of our past 17 acute cat implants. In
this table, we classified responses on each electrode using the scale in
this figure.
 |
|
|
|
High
SNR
>3
|
Medium
3<
SNR <1.5
|
Low
SNR
<1.5
|
Inactive
|
Useful
SNR>1.5
|
|
Minimum
|
1%
|
3%
|
0%
|
16%
|
10%
|
|
Maximum
|
53%
|
52%
|
35%
|
88%
|
68%
|
|
Mean +/-
S.D.
|
20+/-15%
|
16+/-13%
|
8+/-9%
|
56+/-23%
|
36+/-19%
|
Table legend. Recording
statistics from our past 17 acute implants illustrating the mean and
standard deviation of the
number of electrodes with high, medium and low signal-to-noise ratios for
each of the arrays. Minimum
and maximum are the lowest and highest number of electrodes with the
indicated quality of recording on each of the arrays.
Some arrays had a few broken electrodes, so data is presented as
percent of potentially functional electrodes.
In
our best acute implantations in cat area 17, we have been able to record
good single- and multi-unit responses from 68% of the electrodes (because
of the curvature of the gyri in cat cortex, it is not possible to implant
all 100 electrodes in a given gyrus and some electrodes end up in sulci).
More typically, however, we are able to record good quality
single- and multi-unit responses from 36% of the electrodes in a given
array. Global field
potentials, non-discriminable multi-unit responses, and an absence of
responses are recorded from the remaining electrodes.
Chronic recording capability
We
have used chronic implantations of the UEA in cat visual and auditory
cortex and monkey motor cortex to better monitor the stability and long
term biocompatibility of the UEA. We have recorded multi- and single-unit
evoked activity and identified single-units (based on response kinetics)
on many of our electrodes. We
have been able to record single- and multi-unit responses in cat and
monkey cortex for over three years (the longest intervals studied, see
examples below). The presence
of single- and multi-units on many electrodes, and the stability of these
identified units over periods of months provides the most compelling
evidence for the biocompatibility of the UEA.
 |
|
E.
Behavioral Experiments
Useful
function will be achieved in a visual neuroprostheses by injection of
electricalof electrical currents into the visual pathways through
large numbers of electrodes. Current
injections can produce short term and long term complications depending
upon the levels of the currents that are injected (McCreery,
Yuen et al. 1994)
(or see Agnew, Ch6 for a review (Agnew
and McCreery 1990)
). In order to
determine the levels of current injections via the UEA that are required
to evoke sensory percepts, we have conducted a series of behavioral
experiments in cats (Rousche
and Normann 1998)
. Ideally, these experiments would be performed with implants in
visual cortex, but, because of the greater ease of providing auditory
stimuli to a behaving cat, we targeted the auditory cortex as our implant
site and used auditory stimulation rather than visual stimulation.
Three
cats were trained over a one to two month period to lever press as a
result of auditory stimulation, and auditory thresholds were measured.
Trained cats that performed this task at 90% correct were
chronically implanted with the UEA. Following
implantation of the UEA, we interspersed current injections via the UEA
and conventional auditory stimulation.
Current injections that evoked auditory percepts should have
resulted in a positive lever press in the trained animals.
The chronic percutaneous connectors used in these experiments had
limited pin counts and permitted access to a total of only 22 of the
active electrodes in these three cats.
Behavioral thresholds, measured on different electrodes in these
three cats as the amount of charge injected per phase of stimulation,
ranged from 1.5 nC/phase up to 26 nC/phase.
The average threshold, measured in 71 sessions was 8.9 nC/phase.
The stability of four of these threshold measurements was recorded
in one cat over a three month period. Over the 100 days monitoring
interval, thresholds varied by no more than 50%. This provides an
additional index of the biocompatibility of the floating array
design.
Our
experience with animal behavioral experiments has made us very aware of
the difficulty, advantages and limitations of using this approach to
answer complex, systems-level questions.
While animal experimentation has allowed us to answer the simple
perceptual threshold questions raised above, we believe that trying to use
animal behavioral models to answer questions relating to complex
perceptions (the perceptions evoked by stimulation of many electrodes
simultaneously) would require years of training and produce considerable
uncertainty in the interpretation of the findings. We believe that direct human experimentation on subjects
undergoing cortical tissue resection will allow us to answer these complex
perceptual questions more completely, more quickly, and with greater
certainty than they could be answered in a behaving animal model.
Finally, the acute human experiments we are proposing herein will
be conducted with minimal risk to the subjects and with considerable
savings in total experimental cost and in experimental animals.
F.
Human Psychophysical Experiments: visual performance versus number
of pixels
Before one can consider
conducting experiments on human subjects that relate to a cortically based
visual prosthesis, one should have some rough idea about how many
electrodes would be required to restore a useful visual sense in a
profoundly blind subject. We
have performed a number of human psychophysical experiments with a
pixelized vision simulator to get rough estimates of this number (Cha,
Horch et al. 1992; Cha, Horch et al. 1992; Cha, Horch et al. 1992)
. The simulator, shown
to the right, is portable, and consists of a battery powered video camera
and video monitor. The
monitor is masked with one of a number of perforated foil masks that have
from 100 to 4000 perforations. Using
this simulator, six student volunteers were asked to read text out loud
from a computer monitor, and, when trained, to navigate through a complex,
programmable maze. After this
task had been performed, our subjects were challenged to navigate through
normal living environments.
 |
We learned that reading
and navigation performance improved as the number of pixels increased, but
that it began to plateau at about 625 pixels (simulating a 25 x 25 array
of phosphenes) (Cha,
Horch et al. 1992; Cha, Horch et al. 1992; Cha, Horch et al. 1992)
. The study also suggested that with as few as 100 pixels, trained
subjects could navigate our maze without error, and that they could
navigate in normal living environments, avoiding objects in their paths.
While we fully appreciate the limitations of this simulation, it
indicates that significant visual task performance could be achieved with
modest amounts of visual input.
Overview of Biological Approaches to sight restoration
Over
the past decade, an increasing number of researchers have focused their
research activities on biological approaches to sight restoration (or
sight prolongation). One of
the most encouraging approaches is transplantation of embryonic retina,
stem cells, and pigment epithelial cells into the diseased retina.
Other researchers are trying to supplement what are believed to be
missing nutrients or growth factors to keep the retina from degenerating.
As a number of pathological blindnesses such as retinitis
pigmentosa (RP) have a genetic origin, a number of molecular biologists
are also pursuing genetic approaches. We very briefly summarize progress
in these areas below.
Current
Status of Retinal Transplantation: Adult photoreceptors and
retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells have been transplanted in the Royal
College of Surgeons (RCS) rat. They
have survived 2 months after transplantation and the transplanted
photoreceptors appear to form synapses with second order neurons [32]
. RPE cell
transplantation facilitated photoreceptor cell survival in the RCS rat in
early transplants (10-17 days), however, after late transplantation no
receptor rescue was observed [33] |