Dataset Information

Simulating Visibility and Reading Performance in Low Vision.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Low vision reduces text visibility and causes difficulties in reading. A valid low-vision simulation could be used to evaluate the accessibility of digital text for readers with low vision. We examined the validity of a digital simulation for replicating the text visibility and reading performance of low-vision individuals.

Methods

Low-vision visibility was modeled with contrast sensitivity functions (CSFs) with parameters to represent reduced acuity and contrast sensitivity. Digital filtering incorporating these CSFs were applied to digital versions of the Lighthouse Letter Acuity Chart and the Pelli-Robson Contrast Sensitivity Chart. Reading performance (reading acuity, critical print size, and maximum reading speed) was assessed with filtered versions of the MNREAD reading acuity Chart. Thirty-six normally sighted young adults completed chart testing under normal and simulated low-vision conditions. Fifty-eight low-vision subjects (thirty with macular pathology and twenty-eight with non-macular pathology) and fifteen normally sighted older subjects completed chart testing with their habitual viewing. We hypothesized that the performance of the normally sighted young adults under simulated low-vision conditions would match the corresponding performance of actual low-vision subjects.

Results

When simulating low-vision conditions with visual acuity better than 1.50 logMAR (Snellen 20/630) and contrast sensitivity better than 0.15 log unit, the simulation adequately reduced the acuity and contrast sensitivity in normally sighted young subjects to the desired low-vision levels. When performing the MNREAD test with simulated low vision, the normally sighted young adults had faster maximum reading speed than both the Non-macular and Macular groups, by an average of 0.07 and 0.12 log word per minute, respectively. However, they adequately replicated the reading acuity as well as the critical print size, up to 2.00 logMAR of both low-vision groups.

Conclusion

A low-vision simulation based on clinical measures of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity can provide good estimates of reading performance and the accessibility of digital text for a broad range of low-vision conditions.

SUBMITTER: Xiong YZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8287255 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Pedestrians with low vision are at risk of injury when hazards, such as steps and posts, have low visibility. This study aims at validating the software implementation of a computational model that estimates hazard visibility. The model takes as input a photorealistic 3D rendering of an architectural space, and the acuity and contrast sensitivity of a low-vision observer, and outputs estimates of the visibility of hazards in the space. Our experiments explored whether the model could predict the likelihood of observers correctly identifying hazards. In Experiment 1, we tested fourteen normally sighted subjects with blur goggles that simulated moderate or severe acuity reduction. In Experiment 2, we tested ten low-vision subjects with moderate to severe acuity reduction. Subjects viewed computer-generated images of a walkway containing five possible targets ahead-big step-up, big step-down, small step-up, small step-down, or a flat continuation. Each subject saw these stimuli with variations of lighting and viewpoint in 250 trials and indicated which of the five targets was present. The model generated a score on each trial that estimated the visibility of the target. If the model is valid, the scores should be predictive of how accurately the subjects identified the targets. We used logistic regression to examine the correlation between the scores and the participants' responses. For twelve of the fourteen normally sighted subjects with artificial acuity reduction and all ten low-vision subjects, there was a significant relationship between the scores and the participant's probability of correct identification. These experiments provide evidence for the validity of a computational model that predicts the visibility of architectural hazards. It lays the foundation for future validation of this hazard evaluation tool, which may be useful for architects to assess the visibility of hazards in their designs, thereby enhancing the accessibility of spaces for people with low vision.

Project description:Visual information is key to how many animals interact with their environment, and much research has investigated how animals respond to colour and brightness information in the natural world. Understanding the visibility of features in anthropogenic environments, and how animals respond to these, is also important, not least for the welfare and safety of animals and the humans they co-exist with, but has received comparatively less attention. One area where this is particularly pertinent is animal sports such as horseracing. Here there is a need to understand how horses see and respond to obstacles, predominantly fences and hurdles, as this has implications for horse and rider safety, however obstacle appearance is currently designed to human perception. Using models of horse colour and luminance (perceived lightness) vision, we analysed the contrast of traditional orange markers currently used on fences from 11 UK racecourses, and compared this to potential alternative colours, while also investigating the effect of light and weather conditions on contrast. We found that for horses, orange has poor visibility and contrast against most surroundings. In comparison, yellow, blue, and white are more conspicuous, with the degree of relative contrast varying with vegetation or background type. Results were mostly consistent under different weather conditions and time of day, except for comparisons with the foreground turf in shade. We then tested the jump responses of racehorses to fences with orange, fluorescent yellow, bright blue, or white takeoff boards and midrails. Fence colour influenced both the angle of the jump and the distances jumped. Bright blue produced a larger angle of takeoff, and jumps over fluorescent yellow fences had shorter landing distances compared to orange, with bright blue fences driving a similar but non-significant trend. White was the only colour that influenced takeoff distances, with horses jumping over white fences having a larger takeoff distance. Overall, our results show that current obstacle coloration does not maximise contrast for horse vision, and that alternative colours may improve visibility and alter behavioural responses, with the ultimate goal of improving safety and welfare.

Project description:BackgroundMNREAD is an advanced near-vision acuity chart that has already been translated and validated in Greek language. Considering that no validated Greek digital near-vision test exists, our primary objective was to develop and validate a digital near-vision reading test based on the fundamental properties of the Greek printed MNREAD (MNREAD-GR).MethodsThis is a prospective, comparative study. A digital near-vision chart was developed (Democritus Digital Acuity Reading Test - DDART) with text size calibration, audio recording for automatic reading timing, as well as automatic calculation of reading acuity (RA), maximum reading speed (MRS), critical print size (CPS) and reading accessibility index (ACC). Normal and low vision subjects participated in the validation process, responding to MNREAD-GR and DDART at the same day, at a 40?cm viewing distance. Differences in all parameters between the charts were compared with t-test and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Within 15?days, all participants responded again to DDART in a different set of sentences to assess its test-retest reliability.ResultsOne hundred patients (normal vision group - NVG: 70 patients; low vision group - LVG: 30 patients) responded to both reading tests. Non-significant differences were detected for all parameters between DDART and MNREAD-GR except for MRS and ACC that were significantly higher in MNREAD-GR in NVG (p?<? 0.01). NVG participants demonstrated sufficient ICCs that ranged from 0.854 to 0.963, while LVG demonstrated ICCs for RA, ACC, MRS and CPS equal to 0.986, 0.894, 0.794 and 0.723, respectively. All parameters calculated with DDART demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (ICCs: 0.903 - 0.956).ConclusionsThe proposed reading test presented comparable validity and repeatability to MNREAD-GR suggesting that it can be used both in normal and low vision Greek patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04242836. Registered 24 January 2020 - Retrospectively registered.

Project description:SignificanceThis pilot study provides some insight about the potential benefits of telerehabilitation training to improve the reading ability of adults with low vision using magnifiers, to spur future work with larger groups. Telerehabilitation services can be implemented clinically to facilitate access to follow-up care for low vision.PurposeA recent Cochrane systematic review revealed that there are no published visual function outcomes for telerehabilitation with handheld magnification devices for low vision; thus, this study aimed to provide evidence for its preliminary efficacy.MethodsOne to 4 months after receiving a new magnification device (i.e., handheld or stand optical magnifier or portable electronic magnifier), 14 adult low vision patients (with any visual acuity level or ocular diagnosis) received two training sessions at home via telerehabilitation with their vision rehabilitation provider located remotely in-office. Telerehabilitation included a loaner smartphone for Zoom videoconferencing with remote control access software. The Minnesota Low-Vision Reading Test was administered during each of the telerehabilitation sessions to assess near reading (acuity and speed) with the new magnifier.ResultsMean reading acuity with the magnifier was 0.17 logMAR across subjects before training at telerehabilitation session 1, which significantly improved to 0.09 on average a few weeks later at telerehabilitation session 2 (95%confidence interval, -0.001 to -0.16; P = .047). Logarithm reading speed with the magnifier for the reading acuity level at session 1 improved significantly by 0.18 log words per minute on average for the same text size at session 2 (95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.29; P = .002). With the magnifier at session 2, 71% of participants gained at least 0.1 log unit in reading acuity, and half improved by >0.01 in log reading speed; all participants with increased reading speed also improved in reading acuity ( P = .02).ConclusionsThese preliminary data support that telerehabilitation can enhance reading ability and efficiency with newly prescribed magnifiers as an alternative option to in-office vision rehabilitation.

Project description:SignificanceThis report describes the first clinical use of the Ohio Contrast Cards, a new test that measures the maximum spatial contrast sensitivity of low-vision patients who cannot recognize and identify optotypes and for whom the spatial frequency of maximum contrast sensitivity is unknown.PurposeTo compare measurements of the Ohio Contrast Cards to measurements of three other vision tests and a vision-related quality-of-life questionnaire obtained on partially sighted students at Ohio State School for the Blind.MethodsThe Ohio Contrast Cards show printed square-wave gratings at very low spatial frequency (0.15 cycle/degree). The patient looks to the left/right side of the card containing the grating. Twenty-five students (13 to 20 years old) provided four measures of visual performance: two grating card tests (the Ohio Contrast Cards and the Teller Acuity Cards) and two letter charts (the Pelli-Robson contrast chart and the Bailey-Lovie acuity chart). Spatial contrast sensitivity functions were modeled using constraints from the grating data. The Impact of Vision Impairment on Children questionnaire measured vision-related quality of life.ResultsOhio Contrast Card contrast sensitivity was always less than 0.19 log10 units below the maximum possible contrast sensitivity predicted by the model; average Pelli-Robson letter contrast sensitivity was near the model prediction, but 0.516 log10 units below the maximum. Letter acuity was 0.336 logMAR below the grating acuity results. The model estimated the best testing distance in meters for optimum Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity from the Bailey-Lovie acuity as distance = 1.5 - logMAR for low-vision patients. Of the four vision tests, only Ohio Contrast Card contrast sensitivity was independently and statistically significantly correlated with students' quality of life.ConclusionsThe Ohio Contrast Cards combine a grating stimulus, a looking indicator behavior, and contrast sensitivity measurement. They show promise for the clinical objective of advising the patient and his/her caregivers about the success the patient is likely to enjoy in tasks of everyday life.