gms | German Medical Science

Artificial Vision 2019

The International Symposium on Visual Prosthetics

13.12. - 14.12.2019, Aachen

Potential users of visual prosthesis: expectations, motivation and attitudes towards participation

Meeting Abstract

Suche in Medline nach

  • Vasiliki Karadima - Multisensory and Temporal Processing Lab, Panteion University, Athens/GR
  • J. S. Pezaris - Dept. of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston/USA; Dept. of Neurosurgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston/USA

Artificial Vision 2019. Aachen, 13.-14.12.2019. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2019. Doc19artvis44

doi: 10.3205/19artvis44, urn:nbn:de:0183-19artvis446

Veröffentlicht: 10. Dezember 2019

© 2019 Karadima et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). Lizenz-Angaben siehe



Objective: To describe patient views toward visual prostheses, along with perceived risks and benefits about emerging neuro-technology clinical trials.

Materials and methods: Subjects were 38 blind individuals (20 F/18 M) recruited through The Lighthouse of Greece. An information session about retinal, thalamic, and cortical approaches (RA, TA, CA) was given. A short questionnaire (SQ) was given to measure attitudes about visual prostheses. After an extended discussion period which included a focus-group protocol, a long questionnaire (LQ) was given to measure attitudes on visual restoration, perceived benefits and risks, desired visual outcome, motivation, and advice-seeking. LQ responses were correlated against demographic and other parameters, along with SQ answers.

Results: The average perceived risk in artificial vision is higher than the perceived benefit. In both SQ and LQ, benefits for TA are higher than for RA; however, for risks, CA is considered the most dangerous, followed by TA and then RA. Cause of blindness, remaining vision, residence, and age of onset affect the assessment of the three approaches. Importantly, those with remaining vision are less accepting of risk, while no-light-perception subjects are more accepting, although they do not differ in their assessment of benefit.

Discussion: Understanding the attitudes of potential recipients of visual prostheses and their assessment of existing approaches is crucial to maximizing the benefits for patients, researchers and clinicians.

Acknowledgment: Supported by William M. Wood Foundation and Haseotes Family Foundation.