Comparison of Functional Mobility Performance with Clinical Vision Measures in Simulated Retinitis Pigmentosa

Haymes, Sharon A.; Guest, Daryl; Heyes, A. D.; Johnston, Alan

doi:10.1097/00006324-199407000-00004

Cited by 27 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrast sensitivity and visual field extent have been found to be the best predictors of PPWS in people with RP, accounting for between 64 to 69 per cent of the variance in walking speed. 176,179,185 Similarly contrast sensitivity and visual field extent are the only significant factors correlating with selfreported visual disability in patients with RP. 79 Experimental head-mounted image enhancement systems have been developed to improve contrast levels but the recurring problems of restricted visual field and elimination of head and eye scanning make these innovative technologies of little practical use at present.…”

Section: Orientation and Mobility Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contrast sensitivity is a significant predictor of reading 101 and mobility performance 102 in people with RP and will be discussed in depth later in this review. Clinical assessment of contrast sensitivity can be performed using expensive computer-generated stimuli, 103 simple card tests such as the Melbourne Edge Test 104 or low contrast letter charts like those of Pelli-Robson.…”

Section: Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…79 The mobility disability of people with RP has led to the development of a strong research field investigating the influence of visual impairment on mobility. [176][177][178][179][180][181][182] The standard measures of mobility performance are the percentage of the preferred walking speed (PPWS) and the number of unwanted contacts or bumps that occur while walking through a set mobility course. 138 It has been shown that people with RP walk at a slower speed than sighted controls and that reducing the illumination of the environment further slows people with RP, while increasing the number of unwanted contacts.…”

Section: Orientation and Mobility Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Retinitis pigmentosa: visual function and multidisciplinary management

Herse

2005

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) is a leading cause of blindness and visual disability in younger people. Optometrists have a major role in detecting RP and in reducing the visual disability associated with RP. This review summarises the literature relating to visual function in people with RP, with particular attention given to night‐blindness, visual acuity decrease and visual field contraction. The range of low vision aids available for people with RP is reviewed and suggestions given on aids that have been found to be most successful. Most importantly, this review overviews the range of services available to people with RP and emphasises how optometrists need to work with a network of professionals to ensure the best possible visual outcomes for people with RP. Particular mention is made of current findings relating to orientation and mobility training, driving, sensory substitution and adaptive technology. The modern optometrist needs to be aware of the multiple needs of people with RP and have the ability to link them with the professionals best able to help them.

show abstract

Section: Orientation and Mobility Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Orientation and Mobility Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retinitis pigmentosa: visual function and multidisciplinary management

Herse

2005

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, 2000). PPWS is an objective measure of functional mobility performance that has been used in a number of studies (Haymes et al. , 1994; Black et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a prototype Minified Augmented‐View device for patients with impaired night vision*

Bowers

Luo

Rensing

et al. 2004

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An evaluation was carried out of the first prototype (LV-3) of a new night vision device, which incorporates visual field expansion through minification (Minified Augmented-View), to provide feedback for continuing development. Six subjects with night blindness completed visual function measurements and indoor mobility assessments without a device, with the LV-3 and with a commercially available comparison device (the Multi-Vision) at light levels representative of well lit and poorly lit streets. Device performance and potential benefits in real-world situations were evaluated at four outdoor locations (well lit to very dark). Results indicate that the see-through nature and spectacle-frame mounting of the LV-3 address some of the cosmetic and ergonomic disadvantages of currently available devices; however insufficient light sensitivity of the prototype camera limited LV-3 performance. With improved camera sensitivity and full implementation of the Minified-Contours Augmented-View concept in the next prototype, patients might be able to make better use of the novel field expansion and vision multiplexing features to aid outdoor night mobility.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, the original study protocol failed to include measures of CS and Goldmann VF at baseline, which are stronger predictors of mobility in RP than VA 7,9,10,11 , and therefore, we can only assess mobility changes in relation to central vision changes. Comparing pre, 3 and 6 month VA, subjects 1, 2, 4 and 5 show substantial loss of VA in the treated eye and a corresponding decrease of mobility, with subject 4’s VA showing a reduction then recovery from 3 to 6 months post implant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%