ReviewBiomedical engineering letters2026
Determinants of spatial resolution in retinal prostheses: understanding the gap between geometry and vision.
Review in Biomedical engineering letters, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retinal prosthetic systems have emerged as a promising technology for restoring partial vision in patients with severe photoreceptor degeneration. Over the past two decades, development in epiretinal, subretinal, and suprachoroidal devices has progressed substantially, with several representative platforms demonstrating the feasibility of restoring light perception, object localization, motion discrimination, and limited-form vision in clinical settings. Despite these advances, the visual acuity achieved by existing retinal prostheses remains markedly lower than predictions based on device geometry alone. Particularly, a persistent gap exists between the theoretical spatial resolution implied by electrode or pixel spacing and clinically reported visual performance. This review examines the major factors limiting effective spatial resolution in retinal prosthetic systems, with particular emphasis on the resolution gap. Collectively, available evidence indicates that while electrode spacing may be considered a critical determinant of theoretical resolution, it does not represent a direct surrogate for clinical visual acuity. Consequently, improving prosthetic vision requires denser arrays alongside selective neural recruitment, more stable electrode-retina coupling, and stimulation strategies that optimize functionally meaningful percepts. Elucidating the resolution gap and its underlying determinants will be essential for developing next-generation retinal prosthetic systems that provide more effective visual restoration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.