The Functional Performance of the BrainPort V100 Device in Persons who Are Profoundly Blind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This study was conducted to evaluate the functional performance of the BrainPort V100 device, an FDA-cleared sensory-substitution system, in persons who are profoundly blind (that is, have some or no light perception). Methods This was a prospective, single-arm, multicenter clinical investigation. Participants received 10 hours of device training and were required to use the device in their everyday environments for 1 year. Functional performance measures of object identification, orientation and mobility (O&M), and word identification were assessed at baseline, in post-device training, and at the 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month time points. Results Fifty-seven participants completed the study and used the device for 1 year. No device-related serious adverse events were reported, demonstrating that the risks associated with the BrainPort are minimal. Participants performed object recognition (91.2% success rate) and O&M (57.9% success rate) tasks beyond chance level. Discussion This study demonstrates that the BrainPort can be used safely and independently by persons who are blind. Participants with profound blindness can accomplish a set of tasks more successfully by using the BrainPort than without the device. Following initial training, performance on these tasks was maintained or improved over the course of 1 year. Implications for practitioners The BrainPort is a noninvasive and nonsurgical device that heightens functional independence for persons who are blind. The device presents users with more information about their environment than conventional assistive devices, and can enhance independence in performing activities of daily living.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".