The bypassing of degenerated photoreceptors using retinal neurostimulators is helping the blind to recover functional vision. Researchers are investigating new ways to improve visual percepts elicited by these means as the vision produced by these early devices remain rudimentary. However, several factors are hampering the progression of bionic technologies: the charge injection limits of metallic electrodes, the mechanical mismatch between excitable tissue and the stimulating elements, neural and electric crosstalk, the physical size of the implanted devices, and the inability to selectively activate different types of retinal neurons. Electrochemical and mechanical limitations are being addressed by the application of electromaterials such as conducting polymers, carbon nanotubes and nanocrystalline diamonds, among other biomaterials, to electrical neuromodulation. In addition, the use of synthetic hydrogels and cell-laden biomaterials is promising better interfaces, as it opens a door to establishing synaptic connections between the electrode material and the excitable cells. Finally, new electrostimulation approaches relying on the use of high-frequency stimulation and field overlapping techniques are being developed to better replicate the neural code of the retina. All these elements combined will bring bionic vision beyond its present state and into the realm of a viable, mainstream therapy for vision loss.

Retinal implants have proven their ability to restore visual sensation to people with degenerative retinopathy, characterized by photoreceptor cell death and the retina’s inability to sense light. Retinal bionics operate by electrically stimulating the surviving neurons in the retina, thus triggering the transfer of visual sensory information to the brain. Suprachoroidal implants were first investigated in Australia in the 1950s. In this approach, the neuromodulation hardware is positioned between the sclera and the choroid, thus providing significant surgical and safety benefits for patients, with the potential to maintain residual vision combined with the artificial input from the device. Here we review the latest advances and state of the art devices for suprachoroidal prostheses, highlight future technologies and discuss challenges and perspectives towards improved rehabilitation of vision.

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy of electric field shaping in modulating the extent and activation threshold in retinal neurostimulation. This study aims to quantify the interference of neighboring stimulation sites by assessing the shift in the activation threshold produced by a concomitant interfering stimulus. Methods: Electrical stimuli were applied to healthy retinae in a feline model (n = 4) using a 24-channel electrode array surgically implanted in the suprachoroidal space. A 96-channel penetrating electrode array was used for recording cortical responses to a number of stimulation paradigms. Data were analyzed offline. Concurrent monopolar and hexapolar stimuli were delivered at primary and interfering sites separated by up to 2.19 mm to evaluate electric cross-talk. The spike rate was fit to a sigmoidal curve to estimate the P₅₀ threshold. The slope of the linear regression of the P₅₀ value versus interfering current level was considered as a measure of cross-talk. Results: Concurrent monopolar stimulation produced a proportional drop in the P₅₀ of approximately 20% of the interfering current level in presence of a primary monopolar and hexapolar stimulus. On the other hand, hexapolar interference did not alter activation thresholds at the primary site. Conclusions: Hexapolar stimulation reduces electric cross-talk between neighboring sites and represents a technique to reduce interference between individual stimulation sites. In contrast, concurrent monopolar stimulation produces a reduction of the activation threshold of stimuli delivered nearby. Thus, a single source of subthreshold monopolar charge injection can provide benefit in the form of significant threshold reduction simultaneously at multiple stimulation sites.

Retinal electrostimulation is promising a successful therapy to restore functional vision. However, a narrow stimulating current range exists between retinal neuron excitation and inhibition which may lead to misperformance of visual prostheses. As the conveyance of representation of complex visual scenes may require neighbouring electrodes to be activated simultaneously, electric field summation may contribute to reach this inhibitory threshold. This study used three approaches to assess the implications of relatively high stimulating conditions in visual prostheses: (1) in vivo, using a suprachoroidal prosthesis implanted in a feline model, (2) in vitro through electrostimulation of murine retinal preparations, and (3) in silico by computing the response of a population of retinal ganglion cells. Inhibitory stimulating conditions led to diminished cortical activity in the cat. Stimulus-response relationships showed non-monotonic profiles to increasing stimulating current. This was observed in vitro and in silico as the combined response of groups of neurons (close to the stimulating electrode) being inhibited at certain stimulating amplitudes, whilst other groups (far from the stimulating electrode) being recruited. These findings may explain the halo-like phosphene shapes reported in clinical trials and suggest that simultaneous stimulation in retinal prostheses is limited by the inhibitory threshold of the retinal ganglion cells.

Retinal degenerative diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa cause a progressive loss of photoreceptors that eventually prevents the affected person from perceiving visual sensations. The absence of a visual input produces a neural rewiring cascade that propagates along the visual system. This remodeling occurs first within the retina. Then, subsequent neuroplastic changes take place at higher visual centers in the brain, produced by either the abnormal neural encoding of the visual inputs delivered by the diseased retina or as the result of an adaptation to visual deprivation. While retinal implants can activate the surviving retinal neurons by delivering electric current, the unselective activation patterns of the different neural populations that exist in the retinal layers differ substantially from those in physiologic vision. Therefore, artificially induced neural patterns are being delivered to a brain that has already undergone important neural reconnections. Whether or not the modulation of this neural rewiring can improve the performance for retinal prostheses remains a critical question whose answer may be the enabler of improved functional artificial vision and more personalized neurorehabilitation strategies.