Article

The brain as a flexible task machine: implications for visual rehabilitation using noninvasive vs. invasive approaches.

Department of Medical Neurobiology, The Institute for Medical Research Israel-Canada, Israel.
Current opinion in neurology (Impact Factor: 5.43). 12/2011; 25(1):86-95. DOI: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e32834ed723
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The exciting view of our brain as highly flexible task-based and not sensory-based raises the chances for visual rehabilitation, long considered unachievable, given adequate training in teaching the brain how to see. Recent advances in rehabilitation approaches, both noninvasive, like sensory substitution devices (SSDs) which present visual information using sound or touch, and invasive, like visual prosthesis, may potentially be used to achieve this goal, each alone, and most preferably together.
Visual impairments and said solutions are being used as a model for answering fundamental questions ranging from basic cognitive neuroscience, showing that several key visual brain areas are actually highly flexible, modality-independent and, as was recently shown, even visual experience-independent task machines, to technological and behavioral developments, allowing blind persons to 'see' using SSDs and other approaches.
SSDs can be potentially used as a research tool for assessing the brain's functional organization; as an aid for the blind in daily visual tasks; to visually train the brain prior to invasive procedures, by taking advantage of the 'visual' cortex's flexibility and task specialization even in the absence of vision; and to augment postsurgery functional vision using a unique SSD-prostheses hybrid. Taken together the reviewed results suggest a brighter future for visual neuro-rehabilitation.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
432 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One of the most striking demonstrations of experience-dependent plasticity comes from studies of sensory deprived individuals (e.g., blind or deaf), showing that brain regions deprived of their natural inputs change their sensory tuning to support the processing of inputs coming from the spared senses. These mechanisms of crossmodal plasticity have been traditionally conceptualized as having a double-edged sword effect on behavior. On one side, crossmodal plasticity is conceived as adaptive for the development of enhanced behavioral skills in the remaining senses of early- deaf or blind individuals. On the other side, crossmodal plasticity raises crucial challenges for sensory restoration and is typically conceived as maladaptive since its presence may prevent optimal recovery in sensory re-afferented individuals. In the present review we stress that this dichotomic vision is oversimplified and we emphasize that the notions of the unavoidable adaptive/maladaptive effects of crossmodal reorganization for sensory compensation/restoration may actually be misleading. For this purpose we critically review the findings from the blind and deaf literatures, highlighting the complementary nature of these two fields of research. The integrated framework we propose here has the potential to impact on the way rehabilitation programs for sensory recovery are carried out, with the promising prospect of eventually improving their final outcomes.
    Neuroscience 08/2014; · 3.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research into the anatomical substrates and "principles" for integrating inputs from separate sensory surfaces has yielded divergent findings. This suggests that multisensory integration is flexible and context dependent and underlines the need for dynamically adaptive neuronal integration mechanisms. We propose that flexible multisensory integration can be explained by a combination of canonical, population-level integrative operations, such as oscillatory phase resetting and divisive normalization. These canonical operations subsume multisensory integration into a fundamental set of principles as to how the brain integrates all sorts of information, and they are being used proactively and adaptively. We illustrate this proposition by unifying recent findings from different research themes such as timing, behavioral goal, and experience-related differences in integration.
    Neuron 03/2014; 81(6):1240-1253. · 15.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The field of neurobionics offers hope to patients with sensory and motor impairment. Blindness is a common cause of major sensory loss, with an estimated 39 million people worldwide suffering from total blindness in 2010. Potential treatment options include bionic devices employing electrical stimulation of the visual pathways. Retinal stimulation can restore limited visual perception to patients with retinitis pigmentosa, however loss of retinal ganglion cells precludes this approach. The optic nerve, lateral geniculate nucleus and visual cortex provide alternative stimulation targets, with several research groups actively pursuing a cortically-based device capable of driving several hundred stimulating electrodes. While great progress has been made since the earliest works of Brindley and Dobelle in the 1960s and 70s, significant clinical, surgical, psychophysical, neurophysiological, and engineering challenges remain to be overcome before a commercially-available cortical implant will be realized. Selection of candidate implant recipients will require assessment of their general, psychological and mental health, and likely responses to visual cortex stimulation. Implant functionality, longevity and safety may be enhanced by careful electrode insertion, optimization of electrical stimulation parameters and modification of immune responses to minimize or prevent the host response to the implanted electrodes. Psychophysical assessment will include mapping the positions of potentially several hundred phosphenes, which may require repetition if electrode performance deteriorates over time. Therefore, techniques for rapid psychophysical assessment are required, as are methods for objectively assessing the quality of life improvements obtained from the implant. These measures must take into account individual differences in image processing, phosphene distribution and rehabilitation programs that may be required to optimize implant functionality. In this review, we detail these and other challenges facing developers of cortical visual prostheses in addition to briefly outlining the epidemiology of blindness, and the history of cortical electrical stimulation in the context of visual prosthetics.
    Brain Research 11/2014; · 2.88 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
41 Downloads
Available from
May 30, 2014