Use of augmented reality technology for improving visual acuity of individuals with low vision

Performance on clinical outcomes, activities of daily living and user experience on head-mounted displays for people with vision impairment

PURPOSE

To compare the objective performance, acceptance and usability of head-mounted displays (HMDs) to provide evidence-based data that could be used to increase the efficiency of device referrals based upon a person's vision loss and functional needs.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, counterbalanced, individually controlled crossover study was performed on 15 adults with various eye conditions. Performance was measured when using four HMDs: eSight4, Eyedaptic EYE3, Eyedaptic EYE4 and IrisVision Inspire. Performance on clinical visual acuity tests and contrast were assessed, as well as vision-related activities of daily living (ADL) which were divided into three categories: Reading, Searching & Identifying and Eye-hand Coordination. User-experience was also assessed. Logistic regression analyses, Friedman one-way repeated measure analyses of variance by ranks and multivariate permutation testing were used for analysis.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement in visual acuity when using all devices. For contrast tasks, only the eSight4 and Eyedaptic EYE3 improved performance relative to baseline. For most Reading and Searching & Identifying tasks, the odds of being able to perform the tasks were significantly higher while using the devices. However, the actual performance with most devices (e.g., number of words read or reading speed) did not improve significantly over baseline for most tasks. For the Eye-hand Coordination tasks, participants performed equivalent to or significantly poorer than baseline when using the devices. No demographic or clinical predictors of outcomes were identified. Participants expressed dissatisfaction with the devices' effectiveness, acceptability and usability.

CONCLUSIONS

While performance on clinical tests was better when using the devices, performance on most real-world ADLs was equal to or worse than baseline. No single device improved performance on all tasks, and performance on any one task was not improved with all the devices. The overall dissatisfaction with the devices paralleled the lack of objective improvement in the performance of real-world tasks.

A systematic review of extended reality (XR) for understanding and augmenting vision loss

Over the past decade, extended reality (XR) has emerged as an assistive technology not only to augment residual vision of people losing their sight but also to study the rudimentary vision restored to blind people by a visual neuroprosthesis. A defining quality of these XR technologies is their ability to update the stimulus based on the user's eye, head, or body movements. To make the best use of these emerging technologies, it is valuable and timely to understand the state of this research and identify any shortcomings that are present. Here we present a systematic literature review of 227 publications from 106 different venues assessing the potential of XR technology to further visual accessibility. In contrast to other reviews, we sample studies from multiple scientific disciplines, focus on technology that augments a person's residual vision, and require studies to feature a quantitative evaluation with appropriate end users. We summarize prominent findings from different XR research areas, show how the landscape has changed over the past decade, and identify scientific gaps in the literature. Specifically, we highlight the need for real-world validation, the broadening of end-user participation, and a more nuanced understanding of the usability of different XR-based accessibility aids.

The use of augmented reality and virtual reality for visual field expansion and visual acuity improvement in low vision rehabilitation: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Developments in image processing techniques and display technology have led to the emergence of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR)-based low vision devices (LVDs). However, their promise and limitations in low vision rehabilitation are poorly understood. The objective of this systematic review is to appraise the application of AR/VR LVDs aimed at visual field expansion and visual acuity improvement in low vision rehabilitation.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, HealthStar, and National Library of Medicine (PubMed) from inception to March 6, 2022. Articles were eligible if they included an AR or VR LVD tested on a sample of individuals with low vision and provided visual outcomes such as visual acuity, visual fields, and object recognition.

RESULTS

Of the 652 articles identified, 16 studies comprising 382 individuals with a mean age of 52.17 (SD = 18.30) years, and with heterogeneous low vision etiologies (i.e., glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration, retinitis pigmentosa) were included in this systematic review. Most articles used AR (53%), VR (40%), and one article used both AR and VR. The main visual outcomes evaluated were visual fields (67%), visual acuity (65%), and contrast sensitivity (27%). Various visual enhancement techniques were employed including variable magnification using digital zoom (67%), contrast enhancements (53%), and minification (27%). AR LVDs were reported to expand the visual field from threefold to ninefold. On average, individuals using AR/VR LVDs experienced an improved in visual acuity from 0.9 to 0.2 logMAR. Ten articles were classified as high or moderate risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

AR/VR LVDs were found to afford visual field expansion and visual acuity improvement in low vision populations. Even though the results of this review are promising, the lack of controlled studies with well-defined populations, use of small, convenience samples, and incomplete reporting of inclusion and exclusion criteria among included studies makes it challenging to judge the true impact of these devices. Future studies should address these limitations and compare various AR/LVDs to determine what is the ideal LVD type and vision enhancement combination based on the user's level of visual ability and lifestyle.

Preliminary Study of Short-Term Visual Perceptual Training Based on Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in Postoperative Strabismic Patients

The study aimed to explore the potential effect of short-term visual perceptual training based on virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) platforms in postoperative strabismic patients. We enrolled 236 postoperative strabismic patients, among whom 111 patients received VR-based training, and 125 patients received AR-based training. The stereoacuity of 1.5 m and dynamic stereopsis were improved by VR training; meanwhile, AR training exhibited more improvement in stereoacuity of 0.8 and 1.5 m, dynamic and coarse stereopsis. It was suggested that the visual perceptual training based on VR and AR technology can be potentially applied in postoperative strabismus treatment to promote the recovery of binocular vision.

A Scoping Review of Assistance and Therapy with Head-Mounted Displays for People Who Are Visually Impaired

Given the inherent visual affordances of Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs) used for Virtual and Augmented Reality (VR/AR), they have been actively used over many years as assistive and therapeutic devices for the people who are visually impaired. In this paper, we report on a scoping review of literature describing the use of HMDs in these areas. Our high-level objectives included detailed reviews and quantitative analyses of the literature, and the development of insights related to emerging trends and future research directions.

Our review began with a pool of 1251 papers collected through a variety of mechanisms. Through a structured screening process, we identified 61 English research papers employing HMDs to enhance the visual sense of people with visual impairments for more detailed analyses. Our analyses reveal that there is an increasing amount of HMD-based research on visual assistance and therapy, and there are trends in the approaches associated with the research objectives. For example, AR is most often used for visual assistive purposes, whereas VR is used for therapeutic purposes. We report on eight existing survey papers, and present detailed analyses of the 61 research papers, looking at the mitigation objectives of the researchers (assistive versus therapeutic), the approaches used, the types of HMDs, the targeted visual conditions, and the inclusion of user studies. In addition to our detailed reviews and analyses of the various characteristics, we present observations related to apparent emerging trends and future research directions.