Patricia Grant · Optometry and Vision Science 2018 · prospective within-subjects repeated-measures study · n=17

Performance of Real‐world Functional Tasks Using an Updated Oral Electronic Vision Device in Persons Blinded by Trauma

Cited 14 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Prospective single-arm pre-post intervention study (case series design) without an independent control group.

OpenAlex W2888805122 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001273 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Seventeen adults with profound blindness (light perception or worse) caused by ocular or cortical traumatic injury were enrolled in a prospective, within-subjects, repeated-measures study. Participants received 10 hours of device training on the BrainPort Vision Pro—a noninvasive oral electronic vision device translating visual inputs into tongue electrotactile stimulation—and used it independently for one year. Performance on real-world functional tasks (object identification, orientation and mobility, word identification, and environmental awareness) and adverse events were assessed at baseline without the device, post-training, and quarterly over 12 months.

What was found

No clinically significant device-related adverse events were reported. At baseline without the device, 0% of participants could perform any of the functional tasks. After 1 year of independent device use, 100% of participants could identify objects, 41% identified words beyond chance level, 41% located a sign, 94% followed a line without veering off, 71% avoided obstacles, 71% walked through a doorway without collision, 100% recognized a door, and 71% identified a window.

Why it matters

This study provides evidence that non-surgical oral sensory substitution devices can partially restore functional mobility, environmental awareness, and object identification in individuals profoundly blinded by trauma.

Limits

The study is constrained by a small sample size (n = 17) and a single-arm, unblinded pre-post design lacking a sham or active control group. In addition, the abstract does not report long-term adherence rates, average daily wear time, or head-to-head comparisons with standard orientation and mobility aids.

Cited by