Mobility improvement of patients with peripheral visual field losses using novel see-through digital spectacles

Sayed, Ahmed M.; Shousha, Mohamed Abou; Islam, Md Baharul; Eleiwa, Taher; Kashem, Rashed; Abdel-Mottaleb, Mohamed; Ozcan, Eyup; Tolba, Mohamed; Cook, Jane C.; Parrish, Richard K.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240509

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(63 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the face recognition task, participants identified faces at over 75% of accuracy with 100 lm pixels and only 2 grayscale levels. In addition, both Sayed et al 70 and Kinateder et al 71 reported improved object recognition when participants used their respective AR device ( P < 0.001 for both).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Nineteen studies evaluated the use of VR and AR in treatment/therapy as seen in Supplementary Digital Content, Table 4, http://links.lww.com/APJO/A96. [67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85]…”

Section: Treatment/therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six studies evaluated the use of AR-based treatment of patients with low vision and/or loss of visual field. [66][67][68][69][70][71] All these studies examined ways in which AR can improve patients' functional vision.…”

Section: Augmented Realitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in Ophthalmology: A Contemporary Prospective

Iskander

Ogunsola

Ramachandran

et al. 2021

Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Most published systematic reviews have focused on the use of virtual reality (VR)/augmented reality (AR) technology in ophthalmology as it relates to surgical training. To date, this is the first review that investigates the current state of VR/AR technology applied more broadly to the entire field of ophthalmology. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched systematically from January 2014 through December 1, 2020. Studies that discussed VR and/or AR as it relates to the field of ophthalmology and provided information on the technology used were considered. Abstracts, non–peer-reviewed literature, review articles, studies that reported only qualitative data, and studies without English translations were excluded. Results: A total of 77 studies were included in this review. Of these, 28 evaluated the use of VR/AR in ophthalmic surgical training/assessment and guidance, 7 in clinical training, 23 in diagnosis/screening, and 19 in treatment/therapy. 15 studies used AR, 61 used VR, and 1 used both. Most studies focused on the validity and usability of novel technologies. Conclusions: Ophthalmology is a field of medicine that is well suited for the use of VR/AR. However, further longitudinal studies examining the practical feasibility, efficacy, and safety of such novel technologies, the cost-effectiveness, and medical/legal considerations are still needed. We believe that time will indeed foster further technological advances and lead to widespread use of VR/AR in routine ophthalmic practice.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Treatment/therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in Ophthalmology: A Contemporary Prospective

Iskander

Ogunsola

Ramachandran

et al. 2021

Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are also devices with visual displays that transform information to present it in a format that is more accessible to particular groups of partially sighted users. For instance, augmented reality digital spectacles [ 65 ] use digital video reprocessing algorithms involving image remapping and data on the user’s visual field to expand the functional visual field of people with reduced visual fields. The algorithm might need to be separately calibrated for each user.…”

Section: Head-mounted Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearable Travel Aids for Blind and Partially Sighted People: A Review with a Focus on Design Issues

Hersh

2022

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to travel (independently) is very important for participation in education, work, leisure activities, and all other aspects of modern life. Blind and partially sighted people experience a number of barriers to travel, including inaccessible information and environments, and consequently require support from technology or other people to overcome them. Despite the potential of advanced technologies and the development of electronic travel aids, the long cane and guide dog remains the most commonly used solutions. Wearable technologies are becoming increasingly popular. They have the particular advantage of keeping the hands free, thereby facilitating the use of a long cane, guide dog or another device at the same time. They also have the potential to change the ways in which users interact with the environment. The main contributions of this paper are surveying the current state-of-the-art of travel aids from a design perspective and investigating the following issues: (1) The important design issues in wearable travel aids and the extent to which they are taken into account in different devices; (2) The relationship, if any, between where and how travel aids are worn and their design, features and functions; (3) Limitations of existing devices, gaps in provision and future research directions, particularly with regard to meeting potential users’ needs.

show abstract

“…Other research studies [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] reveal few documented cases of eye tracking techniques used to evaluate the usability of AR systems in the last 20 years. In evaluations of more traditional computer-based technology (e.g., web sites, computer applications), eye tracking has proven to be an invaluable tool.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s not always what the eye can see – challenges in the evaluation of augmented reality

Goad,

Mangold,

Furman

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Augmented reality (AR) technology is developing at a fast pace. Usability evaluation methodologies for AR need to be updated to accommodate the increasing complexity of AR technology. Eye tracking metrics, which have been historically successful in traditional, often computer-based technology, have been underutilized when evaluating AR devices. Literature review shows documentation of usability methodology used to evaluate AR since 2000. But these reviews did not address the reasons why evaluators have chosen or excluded certain methods, like eye tracking. They also did not address certain evaluations, such as those performed in the industry sector, which are not typically published. This exploratory study addressed these gaps by deploying semi-structured interviews to gain an understanding of the experiences professionals have when evaluating AR technology. Our results show that participants rely most heavily on user feedback and questionnaires/surveys during evaluation. Most participants did not use eye tracking methods. They cited a number of challenges evaluating AR technology and the use of eye tracking, including difficulties in data collection and a lack of consistency and standards across devices.

show abstract

Mobility improvement of patients with peripheral visual field losses using novel see-through digital spectacles

Cited by 4 publications

References 30 publications

Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in Ophthalmology: A Contemporary Prospective

Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in Ophthalmology: A Contemporary Prospective

Wearable Travel Aids for Blind and Partially Sighted People: A Review with a Focus on Design Issues

It’s not always what the eye can see – challenges in the evaluation of augmented reality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About