High Tech Aids Low Vision: A Review of Image Processing for the Visually Impaired

Moshtael, Howard; Aslam, Tariq; Underwood, Ian; Dhillon, Baljean

doi:10.1167/tvst.4.4.6

Cited by 42 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Low vision aids can be divided into two categories according to their function: those that translate visual information into alternative sensory information, such as sound or touch (sensory substitution); and those that adapt visual information to render it more visible to the user, for example through magnification 8 . Several external magnifying low visual aids, amplifying the image to be recognizable by perimacular receptive fields of the retina, are available on the market.Loss of field of vision, a short reading distance, the weight and large size of the aid are the most common problems associated with these aids 9 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scharioth Macula Lens: A new intraocular implant for low-vision patients with stabilized maculopathy- first experience

Nekolová¹,

Rozsíval²,

Šín³

et al. 2017

Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scharioth Macula Lens: A new intraocular implant for low-vision patients with stabilized maculopathy- first experience

Nekolová¹,

Rozsíval²,

Šín³

et al. 2017

Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Electronic head‐mounted low vision aids (e‐LVAs) have experienced a technological step change over the last decade . A 2017 review of head‐mounted displays for people with low vision highlighted the advantages of such technology over conventional desk‐mounted or handheld sight aids .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Modern e‐LVAs can embed digital sight enhancement algorithms that have been proven effective in laboratory settings for decades . A 2015 review of 37 research papers highlighted the benefit of various image processing techniques for the visually impaired, albeit with inconsistent preferences between people . A more recent review of e‐LVAs illustrated existing strategies to sight enhancement and showed improvements in contrast sensitivity .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefit of an electronic head‐mounted low vision aid

Crossland

Starke

Imielski³

et al. 2019

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of electronic head‐mounted low vision aid (e‐LVA) SightPlus (GiveVision, UK, givevision.net) and to determine which people with low vision would see themselves likely using an e‐LVA like this. Methods Sixty participants with low vision aged 18 to 93 used SightPlus during an in‐clinic study session based on a mixed methods design. Visual acuity (ETDRS), contrast sensitivity (Pelli‐Robson) and reading performance (MNREAD) were measured binocularly at baseline (no device), with the device in ‘normal’ mode (zoom only), and with preferred enhanced mode (zoom and one of four digital image enhancements). At the end of the session, a short questionnaire recorded willingness to use an e‐LVA like SightPlus, potential use cases, positive/negative comments and adverse effects. Results Binocular distance visual acuity improved significantly by 0.63 logMAR on average (p < 0.0001) to 0.20 logMAR. Contrast sensitivity improved significantly by 0.22 log units (p < 0.0001) to 1.21 log units with zoom only and by 0.40 log units to 1.37 log units with zoom and preferred image enhancement. Reading performance improved significantly for near visual acuity and critical print size (p < 0.015), although reading speed significantly decreased (p < 0.0001). Nearly half (47%) of the participants indicated they would use an e‐LVA like SightPlus, especially for television, reading and entertainment (e.g. theatre). Multivariate logistic regression showed that proportion of lifetime affected by sight loss, baseline contrast sensitivity and use of electronic LVAs explained 41% of the variation in willingness to use. Conclusions SightPlus improves visual function in people with low vision and would be used in its current form by one half of the people who tried it. Adverse effects were infrequent and resolved when the device was removed. Future work should focus on comparing e‐LVAs through repeatable real‐world tasks and impact on quality of life.

show abstract

“…The total score varied from 0 to 10. lenses for magnification, such as electronic magnifiers, digital image processing tools, and optical character recognition. 7 Over the past 3 decades, although the demographics of patients with low vision have remained constant, the number of spectacle-mounted optical devices has declined in correspondence with a rise in availability of newer technologies and electronic devices. 8 Our results indicate that the OrCam is an effective lowvision aid that is simple to understand and easy to use.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a Portable Artificial Vision Device Among Patients With Low Vision

Moisseiev

Mannis

2016

JAMA Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ow vision is a major disability and has obvious implications on patients' occupational and social lives. Patients with low vision have a lower quality of life. 1 In the absence of any medical measures to improve vision, aids for low vision and occupational therapy interventions can improve patients' quality of life. 2-4 One portable artificial vision device (OrCam) 5 is an optical character recognition device, capable of recognizing text, monetary denominations, and faces, and can be programmed to recognize other objects. It is activated by the user either pointing, pressing a trigger button, or tapping on the device. The OrCam was recently made commercially available in the United States and is a potentially useful, intuitive, and interactive tool for patients with low vision (current price, $2500-$3500). Interest is increasing among patients and physicians in portable electronic low-vision aids, and these devices warrant further evaluation. 6 The purpose of this study was to perform a preliminary evaluation of this portable artificial vision device's potential use in patients with low vision. Methods Patient Selection This was a short-term prospective study that included patients with low vision seen in the Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Science, University of California Davis, Sacramento. The study protocol was approved by the University IMPORTANCE Low vision is irreversible in many patients and constitutes a disability. When no treatment to improve vision is available, technological developments aid these patients in their daily lives. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the usefulness of a portable artificial vision device (OrCam) for patients with low vision. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A prospective pilot study was conducted between July 1 and September 30, 2015, in a US ophthalmology department among 12 patients with visual impairment and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/200 or worse in their better eye. INTERVENTIONS A 10-item test simulating activities of daily living was used to evaluate patients' functionality in 3 scenarios: using their best-corrected visual acuity with no low-vision aids, using low-vision aids if available, and using the portable artificial vision device. This 10-item test was devised for this study and is nonvalidated. The portable artificial vision device was tested at the patients' first visit and after 1 week of use at home. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Scores on the 10-item daily function test. RESULTS Among the 12 patients, scores on the 10-item test improved from a mean (SD) of 2.5 (1.6) using best-corrected visual acuity to 9.5 (0.5) using the portable artificial vision device at the first visit (mean difference, 7.0; 95% CI, 6.0-8.0; P < .001) and 9.8 (0.4) after 1 week (mean difference from the first visit, 7.3; 95% CI, 6.3-8.3; P < .001). Mean (SD) scores with the portable artificial vision device were also better in the 7 patients who used other low-vision aids (9.7 [0.5] vs 6.0 [2.6], respectively; mean difference, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.5-5.9; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVAN...

show abstract

High Tech Aids Low Vision: A Review of Image Processing for the Visually Impaired

Cited by 42 publications

References 57 publications

Scharioth Macula Lens: A new intraocular implant for low-vision patients with stabilized maculopathy- first experience

Scharioth Macula Lens: A new intraocular implant for low-vision patients with stabilized maculopathy- first experience

Benefit of an electronic head‐mounted low vision aid

Evaluation of a Portable Artificial Vision Device Among Patients With Low Vision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About