A case study in phenomenology of visual experience with retinal prosthesis versus visual-to-auditory sensory substitution.
Blindness
Sensory substitution
Vision
Vision restoration
Visual experience
Visual prosthesis
Journal
Neuropsychologia
ISSN: 1873-3514
Titre abrégé: Neuropsychologia
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0020713
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 08 2022
13 08 2022
Historique:
received:
01
09
2021
revised:
30
04
2022
accepted:
13
06
2022
pubmed:
26
6
2022
medline:
14
7
2022
entrez:
25
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The phenomenology of the blind has provided an age-old, unparalleled means of exploring the enigmatic link between the brain and mind. This paper delves into the unique phenomenological experience of a man who became blind in adulthood. He subsequently underwent both an Argus II retinal prosthesis implant and training, and extensive training on the EyeMusic visual to auditory sensory substitution device (SSD), thereby becoming the first reported case to date of dual proficiency with both devices. He offers a firsthand account into what he considers the great potential of combining sensory substitution devices with visual prostheses as part of a complete visual restoration protocol. While the Argus II retinal prosthesis alone provided him with immediate visual percepts by way of electrically stimulated phosphenes elicited by the device, the EyeMusic SSD requires extensive training from the onset. Yet following the extensive training program with the EyeMusic sensory substitution device, our subject reports that the sensory substitution device allowed him to experience a richer, more complex perceptual experience, that felt more "second nature" to him, while the Argus II prosthesis (which also requires training) did not allow him to achieve the same levels of automaticity and transparency. Following long-term use of the EyeMusic SSD, our subject reported that visual percepts representing mainly, but not limited to, colors portrayed by the EyeMusic SSD are elicited in association with auditory stimuli, indicating the acquisition of a high level of automaticity. Finally, the case study indicates an additive benefit to the combination of both devices on the user's subjective phenomenological visual experience.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35752268
pii: S0028-3932(22)00164-6
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108305
pmc: PMC9297294
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
108305Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Clin Ophthalmol. 2018 Jun 13;12:1089-1097
pubmed: 29942114
Nature. 2001 Jan 11;409(6817):149-50
pubmed: 11196628
Cortex. 2016 Oct;83:212-21
pubmed: 27580465
Br J Ophthalmol. 2011 Apr;95(4):539-43
pubmed: 20881025
Br J Ophthalmol. 2001 Mar;85(3):327-31
pubmed: 11222340
Curr Biol. 1996 May 1;6(5):508-10
pubmed: 8805258
Cogn Sci. 2009 Aug;33(6):1036-58
pubmed: 21585495
J Cogn Neurosci. 1993 Summer;5(3):263-87
pubmed: 23972217
Nat Commun. 2015 Jan 23;6:6026
pubmed: 25613599
Prog Brain Res. 2001;134:427-45
pubmed: 11702559
Ann Acad Med Singap. 2015 Apr;44(4):116-8
pubmed: 26041634
Front Psychol. 2019 Oct 04;10:2246
pubmed: 31636589
Cereb Cortex. 2012 Jul;22(7):1698-709
pubmed: 21940707
Nat Commun. 2022 Jan 26;13(1):513
pubmed: 35082313
Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Jul;7(7):285-286
pubmed: 12860185
J AAPOS. 1999 Feb;3(1):26-32
pubmed: 10071898
PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33136
pubmed: 22438894
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 15;104(20):8241-6
pubmed: 17483447
Nat Med. 2021 Jul;27(7):1223-1229
pubmed: 34031601
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Feb;9(2):e130-e143
pubmed: 33275950
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 Apr;41:26-35
pubmed: 22885223
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Aug 17;118(33):
pubmed: 34385310
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 Apr;41:64-77
pubmed: 24157726
Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 May;23(5):423-434
pubmed: 30876729
Nat Med. 2020 Mar;26(3):354-359
pubmed: 32094925
Conscious Cogn. 2010 Mar;19(1):492-500
pubmed: 19955003
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2005;28:377-401
pubmed: 16022601
Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Jul;13(7):288-92
pubmed: 19525141
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005 Jan;6(1):71-7
pubmed: 15611728
Exp Brain Res. 2008 Jan;184(2):193-200
pubmed: 17717652
Front Syst Neurosci. 2016 Nov 08;10:89
pubmed: 27877116
Sci Rep. 2021 Jul 20;11(1):14762
pubmed: 34285265
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 Apr;41:36-52
pubmed: 23954750
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2006 Oct 11;1:40
pubmed: 17032466
PLoS One. 2021 Apr 27;16(4):e0250281
pubmed: 33905446
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2015 Dec;35:169-77
pubmed: 26469211
Brain. 2005 Mar;128(Pt 3):606-14
pubmed: 15634727
Neuropsychologia. 2010 Jan;48(1):344-8
pubmed: 19703481
Dev Sci. 2021 Jan;24(1):e13001
pubmed: 32506580
Ophthalmology. 2015 Aug;122(8):1547-54
pubmed: 26162233
Neuron. 2012 Nov 8;76(3):640-52
pubmed: 23141074
Perception. 2002;31(6):717-31
pubmed: 12092798
Neuroscience. 2021 Mar 15;458:77-86
pubmed: 33465416
Nat Neurosci. 2007 Jun;10(6):687-9
pubmed: 17515898
Multisens Res. 2020 Jul 01;34(3):297-322
pubmed: 33706280
Lancet. 2006 Nov 18;368(9549):1795-809
pubmed: 17113430
Curr Opin Neurol. 2012 Feb;25(1):86-95
pubmed: 22157107
Psychol Sci. 2009 Dec;20(12):1484-91
pubmed: 19891751
Prog Brain Res. 2011;192:17-31
pubmed: 21763516
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2014;32(2):247-57
pubmed: 24398719
Ophthalmology. 2020 Aug;127(8):1097-1104
pubmed: 32249038
Curr Biol. 2011 Mar 8;21(5):363-8
pubmed: 21333539
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1992 Feb;39(2):112-21
pubmed: 1612614
Multisens Res. 2020 Jun 30;34(3):281-296
pubmed: 33706281
Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:49-75
pubmed: 22747246
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 Apr;41:3-15
pubmed: 24275274