People With Central Vision Loss Have Difficulty Watching Videos.

Purpose: People with central vision loss (CVL) often report difficulties watching video. We objectively evaluated the ability to follow the story (using the information acquisition method). Methods: Subjects with CVL (n = 23) or normal vision (NV, n = 60) described the content of 30-second video clips from movies and documentaries. We derived an objective information acquisition (IA) score for each response using natural-language processing. To test whether the impact of CVL was simply due to reduced resolution, another group of NV subjects (n = 15) described video clips with defocus blur that reduced visual acuity to 20/50 to 20/800. Mixed models included random effects correcting for differences between subjects and between the clips, with age, gender, cognitive status, and education as covariates. Results: Compared to both NV groups, IA scores were worse for the CVL group (P < 0.001). IA reduced with worsening visual acuity (P < 0.001), and the reduction with worsening visual acuity was greater for the CVL group than the NV-defocus group (P = 0.01), which was seen as a greater discrepancy at worse levels of visual acuity. Conclusions: The IA method was able to detect difficulties in following the story experienced by people with CVL. Defocus blur failed to recreate the CVL experience. IA is likely to be useful for evaluations of the effects of vision rehabilitation.

Measuring the Difficulty Watching Video With Hemianopia and an Initial Test of a Rehabilitation Approach.

PURPOSE: If you cannot follow the story when watching a video, then the viewing experience is degraded. We measured the difficulty of following the story, defined as the ability to acquire visual information, which is experienced by people with homonymous hemianopia (HH). Further, we proposed and tested a novel rehabilitation aid. METHODS: Participants watched 30-second directed video clips. Following each video clip, subjects described the visual content of the clip. An objective score of information acquisition (IA) was derived by comparing each new response to a control database of descriptions of the same clip using natural language processing. Study 1 compared 60 participants with normal vision (NV) to 24 participants with HH to test the hypothesis that participants with HH would score lower than NV participants, consistent with reports from people with HH that describe difficulties in video watching. In the second study, 21 participants with HH viewed clips with or without a superimposed dynamic cue that we called a content guide. We hypothesized that IA scores would increase using this content guide. RESULTS: The HH group had a significantly lower IA score, with an average of 2.8, compared with 4.3 shared words of the NV group (mixed-effects regression, P < 0.001). Presence of the content guide significantly increased the IA score by 0.5 shared words (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Participants with HH had more difficulty acquiring information from a video, which was objectively demonstrated (reduced IA score). The content guide improved information acquisition, but not to the level of people with NV. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The value as a possible rehabilitation aid of the content guide warrants further study that involves an extended period of content-guide use and a randomized controlled trial.

Measuring information acquisition from sensory input using automated scoring of natural-language descriptions.

Information acquisition, the gathering and interpretation of sensory information, is a basic function of mobile organisms. We describe a new method for measuring this ability in humans, using free-recall responses to sensory stimuli which are scored objectively using a "wisdom of crowds" approach. As an example, we demonstrate this metric using perception of video stimuli. Immediately after viewing a 30 s video clip, subjects responded to a prompt to give a short description of the clip in natural language. These responses were scored automatically by comparison to a dataset of responses to the same clip by normally-sighted viewers (the crowd). In this case, the normative dataset consisted of responses to 200 clips by 60 subjects who were stratified by age (range 22 to 85 y) and viewed the clips in the lab, for 2,400 responses, and by 99 crowdsourced participants (age range 20 to 66 y) who viewed clips in their Web browser, for 4,000 responses. We compared different algorithms for computing these similarities and found that a simple count of the words in common had the best performance. It correctly matched 75% of the lab-sourced and 95% of crowdsourced responses to their corresponding clips. We validated the measure by showing that when the amount of information in the clip was degraded using defocus lenses, the shared word score decreased across the five predetermined visual-acuity levels, demonstrating a dose-response effect (N = 15). This approach, of scoring open-ended immediate free recall of the stimulus, is applicable not only to video, but also to other situations where a measure of the information that is successfully acquired is desirable. Information acquired will be affected by stimulus quality, sensory ability, and cognitive processes, so our metric can be used to assess each of these components when the others are controlled.