Field Evaluation of a Mobile App for Assisting Blind and Visually Impaired Travelers to Find Bus Stops.

Purpose: GPS location-based navigation apps are insufficient to aid blind and visually impaired (BVI) travelers for micro-navigation tasks, such as finding the exact location of bus stops. The resulting large gaps could lead to BVI travelers missing their bus. We evaluated the ability of a signage detection mobile app, All_Aboard, to guide BVI travelers precisely to the bus stops compared to Google Maps alone. Methods: The All_Aboard app detected bus stop signs in real-time via smartphone camera using a deep neural network model, and provided distance coded audio feedback to help localize the detected sign. BVI individuals used the All_Aboard and Google Maps app to localize 10 bus stops each in downtown and suburban Boston, Massachusetts. For each bus stop, the subjects used both apps to navigate as close as possible to the physical bus stop sign, starting from 30 to 50 meters away. The outcome measures were success rate and gap distance between the app-indicated location and the actual physical location of the bus stop. Results: The study involved 24 legally blind participants (mean age [SD] = 51 [14] years; 11 [46%] women). The success rate of the All_Aboard app (91%) was significantly higher than the Google Maps (52%, P < 0.001). The gap distance when using the All_Aboard app was significantly lower (mean = 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2-2.3 meters) compared to the Google Maps alone (mean = 7, 95% CI = 6.5-7.5 meters, P < 0.001). Conclusions: All_Aboard micro-navigation app guided BVI travelers to bus stops more accurately and reliably than a location-based macro-navigation app alone. Translational Relevance: The All_Aboard app together with a macro-navigation app can potentially help BVI individuals independently access public transportation.

Evaluation of a mobile app for dark adaptation measurement in individuals with age-related macular degeneration.

We present clinical evaluation of a mobile app for dark adaptation (DA) measurement in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) patients and in older adults (age > 50 years) without AMD or other retinal disorders (NV). The outcome measures were the area under dark adaptation curve (AUDAC) and the time for visual sensitivity to recover by 3 log units (TR). Larger AUDAC and TR values indicated worse DA response. The association of AUDAC with AMD was analyzed using linear regression, while time-to-event analysis was used for TR. 32 AMD patients (mean ± SD; age:72 ± 6.3 years, VA:0.09 ± 0.08 logMAR) and 25 NV subjects (mean ± sd; age:65 ± 8.7 years, VA:0.049 ± 0.07 logMAR) were measured with the app. Controlling for age, VA, and cataract severity, the AMD presence was significantly associated with higher AUDAC (ß = 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.64, p = 0.001) and with slower sensitivity recovery (ß = 0.32, 95% CI 0.15-0.69, p = 0.004). DA measurements with the app were highly correlated with those obtained with AdaptDx-an established clinical device (n = 18, ρ = 0.87, p < 0.001). AMD classification accuracy using the app was 72%, which was comparable to the 71% accuracy of AdaptDx. Our findings indicate that the mobile app provided reliable and clinically meaningful DA measurements that were strongly correlated with the current standard of care in AMD.

Gaze Scanning at Street Crossings by Pedestrians With Homonymous Hemianopia With and Without Hemispatial Neglect.

Purpose: To investigate compensatory gaze-scanning behaviors during street crossings by pedestrians with homonymous hemianopia (HH) and hemispatial neglect (HSN). Methods: Pedestrians with right homonymous hemianopia (RHH) and left homonymous hemianopia without (LHH) and with left spatial-neglect (LHSN) walked on city streets wearing a gaze-tracking system that also captured scene videos. Street-crossing instances were manually annotated, and horizontal gaze scan of magnitude ≥20° and scanning rates were compared within-subject, between the side of the hemifield loss (BlindSide) and the other side (SeeingSide). Proportion of instances with scans to both the left and the right side at nonsignalized crossings (indicative of safe scanning behavior) were compared among the three subject groups. Results: Data from 19 participants (6 LHH, 7 RHH, and 6 with mild [4] or moderate [2] LHSN), consisting of 521 street-crossing instances of a total duration of 201 minutes and 5375 gaze scans, were analyzed. The overall gaze magnitude (mean [95% confidence interval (CI)]) was significantly larger toward the BlindSide (40.4° [39.1°-41.9°]) than the SeeingSide (36° [34.8°-37.3°]; P < 0.001). The scanning rate (mean [95% CI] scans/min) toward the BlindSide (14 [12.5-15.6]) was significantly higher than the SeeingSide (11.5 [10.3°-12.9°]; P < 0.001). The scanning rate in the LHSN group (10.7 [8.9-12.8]) was significantly lower than the LHH group (14 [11.6-17.0]; P = 0.045). The proportion of nonsignalized crossings with scans to both sides was significantly lower in LHSN (58%; P = 0.039) and RHH (51%; P = 0.003) than LHH (75%) participants. Conclusions: All groups demonstrated compensatory scanning, making more gaze scans with larger magnitudes to the blind side. Mild to moderate LHSN adversely impacted the scanning rate.

Impact of Apps as Assistive Devices for Visually Impaired Persons.

The pervasiveness of mobile devices and other associated technologies has affected all aspects of our daily lives. People with visual impairments are no exception, as they increasingly tend to rely on mobile apps for assistance with various visual tasks in daily life. Compared to dedicated visual aids, mobile apps offer advantages such as affordability, versatility, portability, and ubiquity. We have surveyed hundreds of mobile apps of potential interest to people with vision impairments, either released as special assistive apps claiming to help in tasks such as text or object recognition (n = 68), digital accessibility (n = 84), navigation (n = 44), and remote sighted service (n = 4), among others, or marketed as general camera magnification apps that can be used for visual assistance (n = 77). While assistive apps as a whole received positive feedback from visually impaired users, as reported in various studies, evaluations of the usability of every app were typically limited to user reviews, which are often not scientifically informative. Rigorous evaluation studies on the effect of vision assistance apps on daily task performance and quality of life are relatively rare. Moreover, evaluation criteria are difficult to establish, given the heterogeneity of the visual tasks and visual needs of the users. In addition to surveying literature on vision assistance apps, this review discusses the feasibility and necessity of conducting scientific research to understand visual needs and methods to evaluate real-world benefits.

Preliminary Evaluation of a Smartphone App for Refractive Error Measurement.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential feasibility of using a smartphone app in myopia screening. Methods: The app estimates myopic refractive error by measuring the far point distance for reading three 20/20 Tumbling E letters. In total, 113 myopic subjects with astigmatism no greater than -1.75 diopters (D) were enrolled from 5 sites. The mean age was 22 ± 8.5 years. The app measurement was compared with noncycloplegic subjective refraction measurement or autorefractor if subjective refraction was not available. In addition, 22 subjects were tested with the app for repeatability. Results: For 201 eyes included, the range of spherical equivalent refraction error was 0 to -10.2 D. The app measurement and clinical measurement was highly correlated (Pearson R = 0.91, P < 0.001). There was a small bias (0.17 D) in the app measurement overall, and it was significantly different across the 5 sites due to different age of subjects enrolled at those sites (P = 0.001) - young adults in their 20s were underestimated the most by 0.49 D, whereas children were overestimated by 0.29 D. The mean absolute deviation of the app measurement was 0.65 D. The repeatability of multiple testing in terms of 95% limit of agreement was ±0.61 D. Conclusions: Overall, the app measurement is consistent with clinical measurement performed by vision care professionals. The repeatability is comparable with that of some autorefractors. Age-associated human factors may influence the app measurement. Translational Relevance: The app could be potentially used as a mass screening tool for myopia.