A Retina-Inspired Computational Model for Stimulation Efficacy Characterization and Implementation Optimization of Implantable Optogenetic Epi-Retinal Neuro- Stimulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a biologically-informed computational framework is developed to model the efficacy and to optimize the implementation of an implantable epi-retinal prosthesis that performs optogenetic stimulation through a μLED array. The developed model is capable of translating visual stimulus inputs into corresponding signals evoked in the transfected retinal cells through optogenetic stimulation, calculating the subsequent neuronal activities of the following retinal layers, and estimating the resulted brain’s visual perception. As such, it can model and quantitatively analyze the impact of optical stimulation parameters (intensity, frequency, directivity, wavelength, etc.) and the μLED array’s physical specifications (array size, density, pitch, implantation location, etc.) on the efficacy of the stimulation. Using this model, we compared optical and electrical stimulations in terms of the structural similarity between their induced visual perception in the brain and the visual stimulus input. We showed that thanks to the cell-type specificity of optogenetic stimulation, it can induce more relevant visual perception qualities than electrical stimulation. We also showed that its resulted visual perception substantially improves with scaling the stimulator’s array size. The model was also used to qualitatively and quantitatively analyze the impact of parameters such as implantation location, light intensity, single- and dual-wavelength stimulation, and illumination divergence angle on the quality of the optical-stimulation-induced visual perception. In each case, the simulation results were followed by our interpretation from a biological point of view. More importantly, in each case, we discussed how the results could be used for optimizing different parameters of an implantable optogenetic stimulator to achieve maximum efficacy and energy efficiency.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".