The goal of this Proof of Concept Feasibility Study is to improve the fixation stability in patients with fixation loss due to blindness or central vision loss using a patented acoustic real-time feedback device. The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. Fixation guidance - can real-time acoustic biofeedback improve the fixation in healthy patients as well as patients with fixation loss? 2. Optimization of fixation guidance - testing of different stimuli to optimize an acoustic training protocol. 3. Optimization of imaging acquisition - testing improvement of both imaging quality and acquisition time using the acoustic feedback tool. For the proof-of-concept-study, patients are asked to fixate on a target point in a darkened room and keep up the fixation. We record patients eye movements with near-infrared-lighting and a camera. Fixation is tested in three conditions - visual target only, auditory feedback only, and visual target followed by auditory feedback. In between each set of trials, patients are asked to rate their subjective exhaustion on a Likert scale. At the end of each recording session, patients are handed a questionnaire for feedback on our proof-of-concept study and device settings. An ethics-approved extension phase is planned to further optimize device parameters and assess performance in a clinical setting.
The goal of this Proof of Concept Feasibility Study is to improve the fixation stability in patients with fixation loss due to blindness or central vision loss using a patented acoustic real-time feedback device. The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. Fixation guidance - can real-time acoustic biofeedback improve the fixation in healthy patients as well as patients with fixation loss? 2. Optimization of fixation guidance - testing of different stimuli to optimize an acoustic training protocol. 3. Optimization of imaging acquisition - testing improvement of both imaging quality and acquisition time using the acoustic feedback tool. Primary endpoints: Fixation stability (in BCEA and distance from target center), fixation duration, time to fixate. We test fixation in two angles: neutral position (0°) and at 15° eccentricity. We compare three conditions: visual target only, combined visual and auditory feedback, and auditory feedback only. Secondary endpoints: adaptation and training effects over time, exhaustion measured in a Likert scale. We measure changes of pupil diameter in response to acoustic and visual stimuli. We also compare efficacy between healthy subjects and subjects with fixation loss and compare efficacy between the three conditions. For the proof-of-concept part of our study, patients are asked to fixate on a target point in a darkened room and keep up fixation for 10 seconds. We record patients eye movements with near-infrared-lighting and a camera. There are three blocks for each condition (visual, auditory, combined), each block consists of 10 trials per eye and per angle. In between each set of trials, patients are asked to rate their subjective exhaustion on a Likert scale. At the end of each recording session, we ask patients for their subjective feedback on which condition was easiest to keep up fixation, whether auditory stimuli were sufficient and open-ended questions on potential improvements of the setup. An ethics-approved extension phase is planned to further optimize device parameters and assess performance in a clinical setting. We validate the findings of our proof-of-concept study and optimize the device settings by adding the acoustic fixation device to our imaging devices. We will compare the results to answer the question whether the acoustic fixation device will lead to an improved imaging quality and acquisition time.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
22
We use a camera and an eye tracking software, linked with our spatial-audio mapping tool. Participants receive real-time audio feedback on the location of their gaze. Negative feedback sounds are encoded to convey distance and direction of the deviation from the center. When the patients fixate on the target area, they receive a positive feedback sound.
EKFZ Else Kroener Fresenius Center for Optogenetic Therapies, University Medical Center Goettingen
Göttingen, Germany
Fixation stability - change from baseline fixation stability recorded without acoustic fixation device compared to fixation stability recorded with acoustic fixation device
In Phase A, we analyse the fixation stability as the distance from the target center (Median \[IQR\]), duration of fixation and time to achieve stable fixation (latency). We also use posthoc video analysis to generate the BCEA as a measure of fixation stability in each condition and each angle (0 and 15 degrees).
Time frame: Day 1
Change in time to achieve fixation over repeated trials
Time required to achieve fixation was assessed across repeated trials to evaluate potential training or adaptation effects. We calculate the time to achieve fixation in seconds across 10 trials per eye per condition per angle. We compare the time to fixate in milliseconds of the first half of trials to the second half of trials.
Time frame: Day 1
Subjective exhaustion rating (Likert scale, 1-10)
We test the subjective exhaustion of each participant after each recording session. We provide a scale from 1-10 (1 being extremely exhausted, 10 being not exhausted at all) for participants to provide subjecte exhaustion feedback.
Time frame: Day 1
Difference in fixation stability (BCEA, time to fixate in ms) between blind and healthy participants across feedback conditions
We compare the efficacy of auditory feedback on fixation stabilty between the healthy and the patient subject group. We also compare the efficacy of the three modalities (combined, auditory and visual) in between groups and within each arm to assess the effect of auditory feedback.
Time frame: Day 1
Correlation between pupil diameter change (mm) and fixation stability (BCEA)
Further, we measure the pupil reaction as changes in pupil diameter (mm) over time (seconds) across different feedback conditions (visual, auditory, combined) and correlate those changes with the achieved fixation stability parameter (BCEA).
Time frame: Day 1
Comparison of fixation stability with clinical and imaging parameters
We further analyse the correlation between achieved fixation stability and clinical parameters (such as visual acuity, age of disease onset, year of diagnosis, clinical and genetic diagnosis) and imaging parameters (presence of EZ in OCT-Scans, thickness of retinal layers, perfusion density, vascular density of deep, intermediate and superficial retinal vascular plexuses in OCTA), fundus autofluorescence, visual field parameters and ophthalmological examination results.
Time frame: Day 1
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.