Learning to see via epiretinal implant stimulation in silico with model-based deep reinforcement learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Diseases such as age-related macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa cause the degradation of the photoreceptor layer. One approach to restore vision is to electrically stimulate the surviving retinal ganglion cells with a microelectrode array such as epiretinal implants. Epiretinal implants are known to generate visible anisotropic shapes elongated along the axon fascicles of neighboring retinal ganglion cells. Recent work has demonstrated that to obtain isotropic pixel-like shapes, it is possible to map axon fascicles and avoid stimulating them by inactivating electrodes or lowering stimulation current levels. Avoiding axon fascicule stimulation aims to remove brushstroke-like shapes in favor of a more reduced set of pixel-like shapes. APPROACH: In this study, we propose the use of isotropic and anisotropic shapes to render intelligible images on the retina of a virtual patient in a reinforcement learning environment named rlretina. The environment formalizes the task as using brushstrokes in a stroke-based rendering task. MAIN RESULTS: We train a deep reinforcement learning agent that learns to assemble isotropic and anisotropic shapes to form an image. We investigate which error-based or perception-based metrics are adequate to reward the agent. The agent is trained in a model-based data generation fashion using the psychophysically validated axon map model to render images as perceived by different virtual patients. We show that the agent can generate more intelligible images compared to the naive method in different virtual patients. SIGNIFICANCE: This work shares a new way to address epiretinal stimulation that constitutes a first step towards improving visual acuity in artificially-restored vision using anisotropic phosphenes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".