Machine Learning Method for Functional Assessment of Retinal Models
This work addresses the need for interpretable evaluation of retinal models to improve visual prostheses for blind individuals, but it is incremental as it applies existing ML methods to a new assessment framework.
The paper tackled the problem of evaluating retinal models for prostheses by introducing functional assessment (FA) using machine learning classifiers on visual tasks, finding that model performance varied significantly across datasets (e.g., over 80% accuracy on MNIST/Fashion MNIST vs. ~40% on CIFAR-10/Imagenette) and correlated with standard evaluation metrics.
Challenges in the field of retinal prostheses motivate the development of retinal models to accurately simulate Retinal Ganglion Cells (RGCs) responses. The goal of retinal prostheses is to enable blind individuals to solve complex, reallife visual tasks. In this paper, we introduce the functional assessment (FA) of retinal models, which describes the concept of evaluating the performance of retinal models on visual understanding tasks. We present a machine learning method for FA: we feed traditional machine learning classifiers with RGC responses generated by retinal models, to solve object and digit recognition tasks (CIFAR-10, MNIST, Fashion MNIST, Imagenette). We examined critical FA aspects, including how the performance of FA depends on the task, how to optimally feed RGC responses to the classifiers and how the number of output neurons correlates with the model's accuracy. To increase the number of output neurons, we manipulated input images - by splitting and then feeding them to the retinal model and we found that image splitting does not significantly improve the model's accuracy. We also show that differences in the structure of datasets result in largely divergent performance of the retinal model (MNIST and Fashion MNIST exceeded 80% accuracy, while CIFAR-10 and Imagenette achieved ~40%). Furthermore, retinal models which perform better in standard evaluation, i.e. more accurately predict RGC response, perform better in FA as well. However, unlike standard evaluation, FA results can be straightforwardly interpreted in the context of comparing the quality of visual perception.