An Overview of Preferred Retinal Locus and Its Application in Biofeedback Training for Low-Vision Rehabilitation

The effect of duration between sessions on microperimetric biofeedback training in patients with maculopathies

Aim of this study was to explore the optimal training interval and times of microperimetric biofeedback training (MBFT) in maculopathies. Twenty-nine patients with maculopathies were divided into two groups: daily training (Group A) or alternate daily training (Group B). Both groups underwent 15 MBFT sessions. We compared the BCVA, reading speed, and fixation stability at baseline, after 5, 10, 15 sessions. After 15 sessions of MBFT, all visual parameters in both groups improved. There was a significant increase in BCVA after 5 sessions in both groups (P=0.016, and P<0.001 respectively), but Group A showed further improvement after 10 sessions (P<0.001). Regarding reading speed, Group A showed significant improvement from baseline after 15 sessions(P=0.020), Group B improved significantly after 5 sessions (P=0.047) and continued to improve after 10 sessions (P=0.030). Additionally, P1 and LgBCEA of Group A significantly improved after 10 sessions (P=0.001, and P=0.001 respectively), while Group B significantly improved after 5 sessions (P=0.002, and P<0.001 respectively). There was no significant difference in visual outcomes between the two groups (P>0.05) except LgBCEA (P=0.046) after 15 sessions. We concluded that the both MBFT frequencies are effective at improving vision and quality of life in patients with maculopathies. The alternate daily training group showed less time-dependent of improvement in all parameters and a greater benefit in fixation stability. Ten sessions are the optimal number of treatment sessions for alternate daily training.

The Effect of Varied Microperimetric Biofeedback Training in Central Vision Loss: A Randomized Trial

SIGNIFICANCE

This investigation reports for the first time the effects of different microperimetric biofeedback strategies in visually impaired subjects with central field loss.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of two MP-3 microperimeter biofeedback strategies on the visual performance of subjects with central vision loss. Moreover, changes between the groups were compared to provide indications of practice with biofeedback stimulation in subjects with central vision loss.

METHODS

Using simple randomization, 19 participants were trained according to two different biofeedback stimulation approaches using the MP-3 microperimeter. Patients were assigned to two different groups: subjects trained for 2 days a week (group A) and 3 days a week (group B). The patients in each group were randomized to perform a total of 10 or 15 sessions.

RESULTS

Fixation stability increased from 4.5 ± 2.8 to 2.3 ± 2.2° 2 and from 8.2 ± 6.9 to 1.4 ± 1° 2 after 2 and 3 weekly biofeedback training sessions, respectively ( P < .05). Biofeedback training induced a significant improvement of 40.7 and 29.4% in reading speed for groups A and B, respectively ( P < .05). A comparison of two weekly biofeedback training sessions with three weekly biofeedback sessions demonstrated greater fixation stability in group B ( P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study concludes that a biofeedback intervention is effective in enhancing oculomotor control in patients with central vision loss. In our study, a more intensive biofeedback strategy seemed to produce significantly better results in terms of functional vision parameters.

Restored vision-augmented vision: arguments for a cybernetic vision

In this paper, we present some thoughts about the recent developments, made possible by technological advances and miniaturisation of connected visual prostheses, linked to the visual system, operating at different level of this one, on the retina as well as in the visual cortex. While these objects represent a great hope for people with impaired vision to recover partial vision, we show how this technology could also act on the functional vision of well sighted persons to improve or increase their visual performance. In addition to the impact on our cognitive and attentional mechanisms, such an operation when it originates outside the natural real visual field (e.g. cybernetics) raises a number of questions about the development and use of such implants or prostheses in the future.