A Comparison of Reach-to-Grasp and Transport-to-Place Performance in Participants With Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Glaucoma

Abstract

Citation: Pardhan S, Scarfe A, Bourne R, Timmis M. A comparison of reachto-grasp and transport-to-place performance in participants with age-related macular degeneration and glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58:156058: -156958: . DOI:10.1167 PURPOSE. To compare visually guided manual prehension in participants with primarily central field loss (CFL) due to age-related macular degeneration and peripheral visual field loss (PFL) due to glaucoma. This study extends current literature by comparing directly ''reach-to-grasp'' performance, and presents a new task of ''transport-to-place'' the object accurately to a new location. Data were compared to age-matched controls.METHODS. Three-dimensional motion data were collected from 17 glaucoma participants with PFL, 17 participants with age-related macular degeneration CFL and 10 age-matched control participants. Participants reached toward and grasped a cylindrical object (reach-to-grasp), and then transported and placed (transport-to-place) it at a different (predefined) peripheral location. Various kinematic indices were measured. Correlation analyses explored relationships between visual function and kinematic data. RESULTS.In the reach-to-grasp phase, CFL patients exhibited significantly longer movement and reaction times when compared to PFL participants and controls. Central field loss participants also took longer to complete the movement and made more online movements in the latter part of the reach. During the transport-to-place phase, CFL participants showed increased deceleration times, longer movement trajectory, and increased vertical wrist displacement. Central field loss also showed higher errors in placing the object at a predefined location. A number of kinematic indices correlated significantly to central visual function indices (P < 0.05).CONCLUSIONS. Significant differences in performance exist between CFL and PFL participants. Various indices correlated significantly with loss in acuity and contrast sensitivity (CS), suggesting that performance is more dependent on central visual function irrespective of underlying pathology.

Use of augmented reality technology for improving visual acuity of individuals with low vision

“…Most of the patients in all three groups had difficulty in the distance and near visual activities, which is similar to the previous studies. [ 20 21 ] Myopia was found to be a more common refractive error when compared to a hyperopic error in all the groups, whereas hyperopic astigmatism was little more in OBV group when compared to the rest. The prevalence of refractive error among conditions causing central and peripheral field loss has not been studied in depth so far.…”

Eye–Hand Coordination Impairment in Glaucoma Patients

“…However, studies based on self-reported functional ability to perform daily tasks indicate a weak correlation between task difficulty and VF defect severity in glaucoma patients [32,33]. Pardhan et al [29] observed that deficiencies in eye–hand coordination measured during reach–grasp–transport object tasks due to glaucoma were more strongly associated with central VF defects owing to age-related macular degeneration than peripheral VF defects. In contrast, Kotecha et al [28] postulated that VF defects in glaucoma are correlated with longer overall movements, reaching maximum speeds, and earlier deceleration during reaching-and-grasping.…”

“…Moreover, impairment was correlated with both increasing VF defect severity and impaired stereoacuity. Pardhan et al [29] studied the reach-to-grasp and transport-to-place tasks used to accurately move an object to a new location and found that patients with glaucoma made more errors compared to the control group. However, no significant differences ( p > 0.05) were observed between glaucoma patients and the control group in other phases of kinematic movement.…”

A Retrospective study of Low vision intervention in individuals with central field loss and peripheral field loss

“…Shahina et al [13] states that patients with CFL will have more difficulty in grasping and reaching for an object when compared to patients with PFL. Similarly this study also reports that patients with CFL had more difficutly for near and intermediate visual tasks when compared to PFL group.…”

“…[11] Although there are various studies which have investigated the use of low vision devices in different ethnic populations or different ocular conditions, still there is lack of information regarding the preference of LVD with regard to type of field loss. Literatures have compared many visual functions among people with central field loss and peripheral field loss, [3,[12][13][14] approval was obtained to analyze the hospital-based data and the tenets of Helsinki were followed.…”