(Lv-123)reading Performance of a New Portable Head-Mounted Closed Circuit Television for Low Vision Patients: Powervision

Sonsino, Jeffrey; Demers-Turco, Paulette; Arai, Mikki; Fujita, Kyoko; McCabe, Patricia; Hirose, Tatsuo

doi:10.1097/00006324-200012001-00383

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reading speed with second‐generation wEVES tends to show either no significant change compared with habitual vision 50,53,55 or a decrease 43,48,51 . Reductions in reading speed are postulated to be due to image movement and field restrictions of the devices being assessed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First‐generation devices have been compared with traditional desk‐based CCTV, with reading speed found to be slower with the wEVES 45,47 or similar to CCTV 41 . Where optical devices were compared with first‐generation devices, wEVES were not consistently better than optical aids for reading (in terms of speed, accuracy or acuity) 43,45,47 or practical tasks 45,46 but did provide longer reading duration 47 . These findings may have been influenced by the slow refocusing times and limited screen resolution of the wEVES tested.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The issues identified include discomfort, insufficient benefit and handling difficulties, 50 weight, appearance and image lag 51 . In addition, subjective reporting of ‘ease of use’ of first‐generation wEVES was lower than a comparable desktop EVES 43,45 . Second‐generation devices' subjective ‘ease of use’ has been investigated using a single 5‐point Likert scale but without comparison with other coping solutions or objective assessment 52,55 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…50,51,55 Reading speed with second-generation wEVES tends to show either no significant change compared with habitual vision 50,53,55 or a decrease. 43,48,51 Reductions in reading speed are postulated to be due to image movement and field restrictions of the devices being assessed. Studies reporting no change in reading speed did show that wEVES improve reading accuracy, 55 or allow reading of smaller print with the same fluency as larger print without the device.…”

Section: -Days In Homementioning

confidence: 99%

“…51 In addition, subjective reporting of 'ease of use' of first-generation wEVES was lower than a comparable desktop EVES. 43,45 Second-generation devices' subjective 'ease of use' has been investigated using a single 5-point Likert scale but without comparison with other coping solutions or objective assessment. 52,55 One investigation reported strong agreement that the device was easy to use, 55 with another reporting 11 out of 30 participants agreeing that the device was 'very easy to use'; however, considerable numbers of these participants still found focusing (27%) and controls (20%) 'hard to use'.…”

Section: Factors Relating To the Successful Use Or Abandonment Of Dev...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Are wearable electronic vision enhancement systems (wEVES) beneficial for people with age‐related macular degeneration? A scoping review

Miller

Crossland

Macnaughton

et al. 2023

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of irreversible visual impairment in the United Kingdom. It has a wideranging detrimental impact on daily living, including impairment of functional ability and quality of life. Assistive technology designed to overcome this impairment includes wearable electronic vision enhancement systems (wEVES). This scoping review assesses the usefulness of these systems for people with AMD. Methods: Four databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL) were searched to identify papers that investigated image enhancement with a head-mounted electronic device on a sample population that included people with AMD. Results: Thirty-two papers were included: 18 studied the clinical and functional benefits of wEVES, 11 investigated use and usability and 3 discussed sickness and adverse effects. Conclusions: Wearable electronic vision enhancement systems provide handsfree magnification and image enhancement producing significant improvements in acuity, contrast sensitivity and aspects of laboratory-simulated daily activity. Adverse effects were infrequent, minor and spontaneously resolved with the removal of the device. However, when symptoms arose, they sometimes persisted with continued device usage. There are multi-factorial influences and a diversity of user opinions on promotors to successful device use. These factors are not exclusively driven by visual improvement and incorporate other issues including device weight, ease of use and inconspicuous design. There is insufficient evidence of any cost-benefit analysis for wEVES. However, it has been shown that a user's decision to make a purchase evolves over time, with their estimates of cost falling below the retail price of the devices. Additional research is needed to understand the specific and distinct benefits of wEVES for people with AMD. Further patient-centred research should assess the benefits of wEVES in user-led activities when directly compared with alternative coping strategies, allowing professionals and users to make better prescribing and purchasing decisions. K E Y W O R D Sage-related macular degeneration, head-mounted display, image enhancement, low-vision aid, visually impaired persons, wearable devices, wearable electronic vision enhancement systems

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: -Days In Homementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Factors Relating To the Successful Use Or Abandonment Of Dev...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Are wearable electronic vision enhancement systems (wEVES) beneficial for people with age‐related macular degeneration? A scoping review

Miller

Crossland

Macnaughton

et al. 2023

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reading aids for adults with low vision

Virgili

Acosta

Grover

et al. 2013

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences Between Protocol And Review: 2013 update: •We decided to remove the RCT filter from the electronic searches in order to identify as many potentially relevant studies as possible. We also specified that reading speed had to be measured at ordinary print size because this is the outcome most relevant to patients in terms of performance using a specific low-vision aid. We also specified that MNREAD definitions of maximum reading speed and reading acuity were adopted in our review and the consequences of this choice are discussed in the revised version. •We used raw reading acuity (words per minute) rather than its log transformation, as done in the original version using individual values, because results are more interpretable on this scale, despite mild skewness. •We also adapted the 'Risk of bias' assessment following new guidance. We reconsidered the scoring of 'within-subject' or crossover-like studies, leading to adapted criteria to score the quality of randomisation and allocation concealment.

show abstract