1. TECHNOLOGY & CLINICAL SUMMARY
[24.Feb.2010]
Daniel S. Durrie, MD
Overland Park, Kansas, USA

2. RevitalVision represents a new category in vision improvement
COMPANY OVERVIEW
RevitalVision represents a new category in vision improvement
Non-invasive technology that enhances eyesight neurologically
The company's U.S. launch is focused on improving outcomes after intraocular lens implantation and refractive surgery
Average improvement of
2 lines visual acuity
100% in contrast sensitivity

3. COMPANY OVERVIEW
This computer-based neural vision therapy (NVT) is clinically and scientifically proven to improve the vision outcomes for:
Amblyopia
post-cataract
post-refractive (LASIK)
presbyopia
night vision
low myopes
sports vision patients
Low Vision

4. HISTORY OF REVITALVISION
The NVT technology was originally developed in Israel where the company was established in 1999.
US FDA 510(K) approval given in August 2001 for the treatment of adult amblyopia (age 9-55).
The company, relocated to Singapore in 2004 under the company name NeuroVision, Inc.
due to government interest in the treatment of pediatric myopia in the Asian Pacific Region. 

5. HISTORY OF REVITALVISION
Has treated more than 4,000 patients in Europe, the U.S., and Asia.
In 2009, NeuroVision was purchased by RevitalVision LLC, and operations were relocated to the United States, in Lawrence, Kansas.
The technology has successfully conducted U.S. clinical trials that replicate the international results.

6. RevitalVision Concept=
OPTICS (EYE) +
NEURAL (BRAIN)
Vision aids like
Spectacles and contact lenses
NeuroVision
RevitalVision optimizes the visual processing in the brain
Neurologically Retrains the Brain to See Better

7. PRESENT PRODUCT OFFERINGS IN THE USA
PRODUCTS READY FOR MARKET: Amblyopia, Low Vision (Macular Degeneration), Low Myopia, Sports Vision, Night Driving

8. SCIENTIFIC PREMISE
Software-based, interactive system tailored and continuously adaptive to individual visual abilities
Probes specific neuronal interactions to induce improvement of contrast sensitivity function (CSF) due to a reduction of noise and increase in signal strength
Compensates for blurred inputs coming from the retina by enhancing neural processing

9. SCIENTIFIC BUILDING BLOCKS
Neuronal lateral interactions
Gabor patch visual stimulus
Use of flankers
Perceptual learning
Brain plasticity

10. NEURONAL LATERAL INTERACTIONS
Individual neurons respond to:
Precise location
Orientation
Spatial frequency
Neuronal Interactions:
Result in excitation or suppression
Occur at multiple levels of the visual pathway
RevitalVision enhances these lateral interactions

11. GABOR PATCH
Gabor Patches developed by Nobel Prize winning physicist, Dennis Gabor
Widely used in the field of visual neuroscience to describe the shape of receptive fields of neurons in the primary visual cortex
They represent the most effective stimulation of the primary visual cortex 11

12. Target Flankers USE OF FLANKERS
First Display
Second Display
Target
Flankers
The software measures the contrast threshold of a Gabor target with the presence of flankers
The patient is exposed to two short displays in succession and the patient identifies which display contains three Gabors 12

13. SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF FLANKERS & COLLINEARITY
Lateral masking and collinear alignment of the Gabor patches improve neuronal efficiency and improvement of CSF by reducing the noise to signal ratio of neural activity in the primary visual cortex.
Animal model showed increased visual cortex stimulation with collinearly oriented flankers (spatial frequency patterns are oriented in a linear fasion).1
1. Polat, et al. Collinear stimuli regulate visual responses depending on cell's contrast threshold.
Nature. 1998;391:

14. Target-Flankers Separation
MANIPULATION OF GABOR STIMULUS & FLANKERS
Spatial Frequency
Local Orientation
Contrast
Global Orientation
Target-Flankers Separation
Target Displacement 14

15. Visual acuity improvement in adults with amblyopia has been reported
BRAIN PLASTICITY
Neural plasticity relates to the ability of the nervous system to adapt to changed conditions
Visual acuity improvement in adults with amblyopia has been reported
After prolonged patching
After the better eye’s vision has been degraded by age related macular degeneration, cataract or trauma

16. NEUROPROCESSING BASICS
The brain pools responses across many neurons to average out noisy activity of single cells
improving signal-to-noise ratio, leading to improved visual performance and acuity
The noise of individual neurons can be brought under experimental control by appropriate choice of stimulus conditions
Contrast sensitivity at low levels can be increased dramatically through control of stimulus parameters 16

17. NEUROPROCESSING BASICS
Hubel et al., Receptive fields of single neurons in the cat’s striate cortex. J Physiol 1959,148:
Changes in electrical activity in a cat cortex were examined in response to visual stimulation
Specific neurons in the primary visual cortex respond to specific visual stimulations
The main parameters are location, orientation and spatial frequency of the visual stimulus.
In 1981 Hubel & Wiesel received Nobel Prize for this discovery, which led to understanding of visual processing

18. NEUROPROCESSING BASICS
Polat, et al. Collinear stimuli regulate visual responses depending on cell's contrast threshold. Nature. 1998;391:
Demonstrated a direct correlation between different contrast levels and single neuron response in the primary visual cortex
There is neural plasticity in the adult brain
Perceptual learning can be modified
Vision can improve by perceptual learning technique by practicing a series of controlled and repetitive specific visual tasks.
The vision improvement reflects improved contrast sensitivity.

19. CLINICAL IMPLEMENTATION
Step 1: ECP VA data creates baseline for RevitalVision treatment
Step 2: Patient completes two sessions; neural performance analyzed
Step 3:
20-40 customized sessions completed at home via internet; darkened room, five feet from screen
Step 4: Treatment completed. Vision performance maximized
TREATMENT FLOW
Results sent to server. Sessions adjust to progress, improving neural performance

20. COMPUTERIZED EVALUATION SESSIONS
NeuroVision Training
03/24/2008
COMPUTERIZED EVALUATION SESSIONS
After an Orientation Session the patient undergoes two computerized Evaluation Sessions
The Computerized Evaluation sessions identify the patient’s specific visual abilities and inefficiencies and define individual parameters that will affect the patient’s treatment plan 20

21. NeuroVision Training
03/24/2008
TREATMENT SESSIONS
Typically patient should undergo 30 sessions during this phase (40 for amblyopia).
The patient should perform on average three (3) treatment sessions per week.
Visit interruptions longer than two (2) weeks on aggregate are discouraged.
Three (3) periodic examination are recommended along the treatment sessions to monitor and feedback patient progress.
Amblyopic patients – should prescribed best corrected eyewear before baseline examination, and instructed to wear glasses/contact lenses through the entire treatment period.
In non amblyopic patients - as progress is made, the refraction of the training glasses (previously prescribed to the patient) might change. 21

22. NeuroVision Training
03/24/2008
END OF TREATMENT
Patient will terminate the treatment sequence after 30 sessions (40 for Amblyopia)
Following the end of treatment, the patient should be scheduled for End of Treatment examination
The End of Treatment Examination is a repetition of the Baseline examination 22

23. GUIDELINE FOR BEST RESULTS
Motivation, consistency and compliance are key for achieving best results
Make your best efforts to concentrate and achieve the best performance during each session
Perform RevitalVision sessions at the time of day you are most alert (Not late night when sleepy)
Perform RevitalVision sessions 3 times a week
Be aware of the quality of your vision throughout the course of treatment. Experience your vision improvement during daily activities
Use your glasses less as vision improves (non amblyopic)

24. Polat U, Naim TM, Belkin M, Sagi D. PNAS 2004;101:17:6692-6697.
CLINICAL RESEARCH SUMMARY
Polat U, Naim TM, Belkin M, Sagi D. PNAS 2004;101:17:
Polat et al. studied 54 adult amblyopic patients who were randomized to amblyopic NVT treatment or a placebo vision-training program.
Pre treatment visual acuity in both study arms was 0.42 logMAR, and this improved by 2.5 lines to 20/30 in the NVT treatment group, with no improvement in the control group. (statistically significant )
This increase in acuity was corroborated by a commensurate increase in CSF to within the normal range.
These improvements in acuity and CSF were sustained after 12 months.

25. CLINICAL RESEARCH SUMMARY
Tan D, Fong A. Efficacy of neural vision therapy to enhance contrast sensitivity function and visual acuity in low myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;Apr;34(4):570-7.
D. Tan and A. Fong conducted a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of NVT in low myopia.
The results showed statistically significant difference in unaided visual acuity between the masked and treatment groups
Mean improvement of 2.6 logMar lines of distance uncorrected visual acuity for low myopes,
2.0 logMar lines near unaided visual acuity for early presbyopes.
Results suggest evidence of efficacy and safety with NVT treatment in improving visual acuity and contrast sensitivity function in adult low myopes.

26. CLINICAL RESEARCH SUMMARY
Durrie D, McMinn PS. Computer-based primary visual cortex training for treatment of low myopia and early presbyopia. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2007;105:132-8
D. Durrie and P. McMinn evaluated 11 patients with low myopia (up to -1.75D) and 18 with early presbyopia (up to +2.50D Add) in 2 clinical sites who underwent NVT.
Control group performed only visual examinations
Low myopia group
Treatment group achieved a mean improvement of 2.2 logMAR lines in UAVA.
CSF improved at all spatial frequencies.
Control patients did not shown any significant change in vision.
Early presbyopia group
Mean improvement of 2.2 logMAR lines in near UCDVA.
Near UCSF improved at all spatial frequencies.
The control patients did not shown any significant change in vision.
Mean refractive error in all groups remained unchanged after treatment.

27. CLINICAL RESEARCH SUMMARY
Lim KL, Fam HB. NeuroVision treatment for low myopia following LASIK regression. J Refract Surg Apr;22(4):406-8.
Lim et al. reported a single case of NVT for the treatment low myopic regression five years after bilateral myopic LASIK.
The patient improved 2.8 lines in the right eye and 1.6 lines in the left eye following NVT.

28. Tan D, Fong A 2007, Unpublished Data
CLINICAL RESEARCH SUMMARY
Tan D, Fong A 2007, Unpublished Data
Tan et al. reported clinical data for low myopes and presbyopes after completion of the NVT training.
After treatment there was a mean improvement of 2.8 logMar lines in distance UCVA for 55 low myopes
Mean improvement of 1.6 logMar lines in near UCVA for the 41 presbyopes (age year old)
The improvements were shown to be retained for at least 12 months.

29. CLINICAL RESEARCH SUMMARY
Durrie, D. Slade, S Unpublished data Waring IV GO, Durrie DS. NeuroLASIK – Can surgeons improve LASIK outcomes by training the visual cortex? Cataract and Refractive Surgery Today, Aug 2008;52-53.
D. Durrie and S. Slade conducted a prospective, randomized, multicenter placebo controlled study comparing neural vision therapy (NVT) after LASIK (“NeuroLASIK”) to sham treatment (video game) following LASIK in 98 eyes.
Treatment group
UCDVA improved 0.8 Snellen lines
79% improvement in contrast sensitivity function (CSF)
Control group
UCDVA 0.28 line improvement
52% improvement in CSF
Patients who were worse than 20/20 after LASIK with NVT
UCDVA improved 1.56 Snellen lines
90% improvement in CSF
Control group worse than 20/20 after LASIK with sham treatment
UCDVA improved 0.34 lines
47% improvement in CSF
The results suggested that patients who had worse vision improved more and that perhaps there is a cortical limit to how much a patient can improve.

30. Hunkeler J, Lindstrom D. Unpublished Data 2009
CLINICAL RESEARCH SUMMARY
Hunkeler J, Lindstrom D. Unpublished Data 2009
J. Hunkeler and D. Lindstrom prospectively evaluated the efficacy of computer based primary NVT in improving vision after aspheric monofocal, multifocal and accommodative Intraocular Lens (IOL) implantation of 5 different IOL styles in 60 eyes.
After CVT, mean improvement in UCDVA and UCNVA for the entire group was 1.3 and 1.0 lines respectively
Mean improvement in distance and near CSF were 223% and 197% respectively.
After CVT, mean improvement in UCDVA and UCNVA were
Crystalens accommodative IOL (N=6) was 0.3 and 1.7
Alcon Restor (N=10) was 1.5 and 1.1
AMO ReZoom (N=24) was 1.4 and 0.7
Alcon Acrysof monofocal (N=10) was 1.3 and 0.7
AMO Technis monofocal (N=10) was 1.4 and 1.3 lines respectively.

31. Adult Amblyopia Trial: 2000-2001
RESULTS OF EARLY STUDIES
Adult Amblyopia Trial:
Control Group
Treatment Group 10 44
Number of subjects
38.2 ± 9.4
35.0 ± 13.0
Average Age
0.41 ± 0.12
(20/51)
0.41 ± 0.14
Mean BCVA in Amblyopic Eye
Before Treatment in logMar
0.17 ± 0.14
(20/30)
After Treatment in logMar
N/A
0.21 ± 0.14
(20/33)
1 Year After Treatment in logMar
Mean 2.4 Lines Improvement in the Treatment Group
Mean 0.0 Lines Improvement in the Control Group
Minor Regression 1 Year After Treatment End – 85% of the Mean Improvement was Maintained
* FDA approved for Adult Amblyopia 31

32. Adult Amblyopia Trial: 2000-2001
RESULTS OF EARLY STUDIES
Adult Amblyopia Trial:
BCVA=20/30
BCVA=20/33
BCVA=20/51
12 Months Post Treatment
At End of Treatment
Before Treatment Start
Contrast Sensitivity Improved at All Frequencies
Contrast Sensitivity Improved in average more than 100%
After Treatment Contrast Sensitivity Improved into the Normal Range
Contrast Sensitivity Maintained 1 Year After Treatment End (Even Slightly Better Compare to Treatment End) 32

33. Low Myopia, Singapore Eye Research Institute, 2003 - 2004
RESULTS OF EARLY STUDIES
Low Myopia, Singapore Eye Research Institute,
Treatment Group 20
Number of subjects
34.0 (16 to 55)
Average Age
-1.08D (0 to -1.75)
Mean Cycloplegic Spherical Equivalence Before Treatment
-1.06D (0 to -1.75)
Mean Cycloplegic Spherical Equivalence After Treatment
0.31 ± 0.03
(20/41)
Mean Unaided VA
Before Treatment in logMar
0.10 ± 0.03
(20/25)
After Treatment in logMar
0.12 ± 0.03
(20/26)
1 Year After Treatment in logMar
Mean 2.1 Lines Improvement in the Treatment Group
Minor Regression 1 Year After Treatment End – 90% of the Mean Improvement was Maintained 33

34. Low Myopia, Singapore Eye Research Institute 2003 - 2004
RESULTS OF EARLY STUDIES
Low Myopia, Singapore Eye Research Institute
UCVA=20/25
UCVA=20/26
UCVA=20/41
12 Months Post Treatment
At End of Treatment
Before Treatment Start
Contrast Sensitivity Improved at All Frequencies
Contrast Sensitivity Improved in average approximately 100%
After Treatment Contrast Sensitivity Improved Well Within the Normal Range
Contrast Sensitivity Maintained 1 Year After Treatment End 34

35. Low Myopia and Post Refractive Surgery Commercial Data, 2004-2005
RESULTS OF EARLY STUDIES
Low Myopia and Post Refractive Surgery Commercial Data,
Post Refractive Surgery
Low Myopia 35
259
Number of subjects
30 (7-55)
Average Age
-1.14D ± 0.11
-1.34D ± 0.03
Mean Manifest Spherical Equivalence Before Treatment
-1.09D ± 0.12
-1.20D ± 0.04
Mean Manifest Spherical Equivalence After Treatment
0.32 ± 0.03
(20/42)
0.43 ± 0.01
(20/54)
Mean Unaided VA
Before Treatment in logMar
0.10 ± 0.02
(20/25)
0.17 ± 0.01
(20/30)
After Treatment in logMar
N/A
0.21 ± 0.01
(20/33)
1 Year After Treatment in logMar (48 subjects)
Mean 2.6 Lines Improvement in the Low Myopia Treatment Group
Mean 2.2 Lines Improvement in the Post Refractive Surgery Treatment Group
Minor Regression 1 Year After Treatment End in the Low Myopia Treatment Group – 85% of the Mean Improvement was Maintained 35

36. Low Myopia Post Refractive Surgery Commercial Data, 2004-2005
RESULTS OF EARLY STUDIES
Low Myopia Post Refractive Surgery Commercial Data,
Low Myopia
Post Refractive Surgery
Spatial Frequency
UCVA=20/28
UCVA=20/54
UCVA=20/30
UCVA=20/33
UCVA=20/25
UCVA=20/44
UCVA=20/42
Contrast Sensitivity Improved at All Frequencies in Both Groups
Contrast Sensitivity Improved in average more than 100% in Both Groups
After Treatment Contrast Sensitivity Improved Well Within the Normal Range in Both Groups
Contrast Sensitivity Maintained 1 Year After Treatment End, with Minor Regression
12 Months Post Treatment
At End of Treatment
Before Treatment Start 36

37. Presbyopia, European Trial, 2005
RESULTS OF EARLY STUDIES
Presbyopia, European Trial, 2005
Treatment Group 41
Number of subjects
46.37 ± 0.52 (41-55)
Average Age
+1.40D ± 0.05D
Mean Near Addition
0.33 ± 0.04
(20/43)
Mean Unaided VA
Before Treatment in logMar
0.17 ± 0.04
(20/29)
After Treatment in logMar
Mean 1.6 Lines Improvement in the Presbyopia Treatment Group 37

38. Presbyopia, European Trial, 2005
RESULTS OF EARLY STUDIES
Presbyopia, European Trial, 2005
Spatial Frequency
UCNVA=20/35
UCNVA=20/54
UCNVA=20/29
UCNVA=20/43
12 Months Post Treatment
At End of Treatment
Before Treatment Start
Contrast Sensitivity Improved at All Frequencies in the Presbyopia Treatment Group
After Treatment Contrast Sensitivity Improved into the Normal Range 38

39. Visual Improvement and Functional Outcome
RESULTS OF EARLY STUDIES
Visual Improvement and Functional Outcome
Visual Acuity Improvement
Contrast
Sensitivity
Improvement
Retention of Improvement
1 Year Post
Treatment
Main
Functional
Outcome
Myopia
Up to -1.50D
2.6 Lines ETDRS (Distance)
Above 100% in
All Frequencies
85% of the Improvement
Decrease
Dependency on
Spectacles
Presbyopia
Up to +1.5D
2.0 Lines ETDRS
(Near)
Average Of
100% in
Delay The Need for Reading Glasses
Post
Refractive
Surgery
2.3 Lines ETDRS
(Distance)
Increased
Quality of
Functional Vision
Amblyopia
2.5 Lines ETDRS
Quality of Vision,
Improved
Binocularity 39

40. New Treatment: “Physical Therapy for Vision”
INCORPORATING IN PRACTICE
New Treatment: “Physical Therapy for Vision”
RevitalVision enhance surgical outcomes
Little or no interruption to current practice procedures
It’s as easy as “writing a prescription”
Therapy can be done anytime, post surgery

41. INCORPORATING IN PRACTICE
Cataract and LASIK products can be offered to patients
Bundle with surgery
Offer premium package
Include as part of standard of care (premium practices)
Minimum extra intervention by doctor’s office
Amblyopia: the only clinically proven treatment to improve vision for adult amblyopic patients
Other products: (amblyopia, presbyopia, low myopia, etc.)
Offer to suitable candidates

42. INCORPORATING IN PRACTICE
Therapeutic opportunity for reduced contrast sensitivity as age and cataract surgery contribute to decline in CSF
Empowers the patient to improve their own visual outcomes
Additional tool for patient satisfaction
Make patient’s vision better
Empower patients to improve with their home “physical therapy for vision.”
Minimum changes necessary at practice level
All technical needs are handled by RevitalVision (distributors).
Patient progress monitored by RevitalVison
Potential source for additional revenue for physician practices

43. INCORPORATING IN PRACTICE
Offer RevitalVision at Surgeon Office
Bundle with cataract surgery
Offer premium package – up charge
Include as part of standard of care (premium practices)
Referring Optometrist
Offer RevitalVision to patient at 3 or 6 month follow-up
All Post Surgical Patients
Patient undergo first guided training session at the clinic and the rest are done at home. Any technical issues are handled directly by RevitalVision (local distributors)

44. SUMMARY Novel approach to improvement in visual function
“Physical therapy for vision”
Computer based primary cortex vision training
Founded on proprietary cortical visual science therapeutic strategies
Average improvement of 2 lines visual acuity and 100% in contrast sensitivity
Non-invasive and safe
Multiple treatment indications offerings including amblyopia, post IOL implant therapy, post refractive surgery, presbyopia, Low Myopia, Low Vision, Sport Vision.
Future product offerings in development 44

45. CONTACT INFORMATION
RevitalVision, LLC
NeuroVision/RevitalVision distributors:
ISRAEL- Talshir Medical Technologies Ltd.
Turkey- NoroVizyon Ltd.
Greece – Vitamia Medical Ltd.