The effect of illumination on the visibility of steps and ramps for people with low vision.

SIGNIFICANCE: Poor visibility of indoor features such as steps and ramps can pose mobility hazards for people with low vision. For purposes of architectural design, it is important to understand how design parameters such as the illumination level of an indoor space affect the visibility of steps and ramps. PURPOSE: This study was aimed to examine the effect of typical variation in photopic illumination level in an indoor space on the visibility of steps and ramps for individuals with low vision. METHODS: Steps and ramps were constructed in a large windowless room illuminated by overhead lights. Subjects with low vision completed a 5-alternative forced choice task to recognize the targets at three levels of photopic illumination, i.e., 800, 80, and 8 lux, and gave confidence ratings about their judgments on a 5-point scale. Acuities and contrast sensitivities of the subjects were also measured at each illumination level. For comparison, a group of normally sighted subjects with simulated acuity reduction also completed the step-and-ramp recognition task. RESULTS: For both groups of subjects, recognition accuracy was not affected by illumination level. For subjects with low vision, however, there was a significant effect of illumination level on confidence rating: subjects became more confident about their judgments with increasing illumination. There was also a weak effect of illumination level on acuity and contrast sensitivity, both worsening with decreasing illumination. Recognition performance was best predicted by contrast sensitivity, whereas confidence was best predicted by visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS: Illumination variation over a typical photopic range in an indoor space had minimal effect on the objective visibility of steps and ramps for people with low vision. However, illumination level affected subjects' confidence in hazard recognition. Design decisions on parameters such as illumination should consider the consequences on both the objective and the subjective accessibility of a space.

Customizing spatial remapping of letters to aid reading in the presence of a simulated central field loss.

Reading is a primary concern of patients with central field loss (CFL) because it is typically performed with foveal vision. Spatial remapping offers one potential avenue to aid in reading; it entails shifting occluded letters to retinal areas where vision is functional. Here, we introduce a method of creating and testing different remapping strategies-ways to remap text-customized for CFL of different shapes. By simulating CFL in typically-sighted individuals, we tested the customization hypothesis-that the benefits of different remapping strategies will depend on the properties of the CFL. That is, remapping strategies will aid reading differentially in the presence of differently shaped CFL. In Experiment 1, letter recognition in the presence of differently shaped CFL was assessed in and around central vision. Using these letter recognition "maps" different spatial remappings were created and tested in Experiment 2 using a word recognition task. Results showed that the horizontal gap remapping, which did not remap any letters vertically, resulted in the best word recognition. Results were also consistent with the customization hypothesis; the benefits of different remappings on word recognition depended on the different CFL shapes. Although the horizontal gap remapping resulted in very good word recognition, tailoring remapping strategies to the shape of patients' CFL may aid reading with the wide range of sizes and shapes encountered by patients with CFL.

Development and validation of a questionnaire for assessing visual and auditory spatial localization abilities in dual sensory impairment.

Spatial localization is important for social interaction and safe mobility, and relies heavily on vision and hearing. While people with vision or hearing impairment compensate with their intact sense, people with dual sensory impairment (DSI) may require rehabilitation strategies that take both impairments into account. There is currently no tool for assessing the joint effect of vision and hearing impairment on spatial localization in this large and increasing population. To this end, we developed a novel Dual Sensory Spatial Localization Questionnaire (DS-SLQ) that consists of 35 everyday spatial localization tasks. The DS-SLQ asks participants about their difficulty completing different tasks using only vision or hearing, as well as the primary sense they rely on for each task. We administered the DS-SLQ to 104 participants with heterogenous vision and hearing status. Rasch analysis confirmed the psychometric validity of the DS-SLQ and the feasibility of comparing vision and hearing spatial abilities in a unified framework. Vision and hearing impairment were associated with decreased visual and auditory spatial abilities. Differences between vision and hearing abilities predicted overall sensory reliance patterns. In DSI rehabilitation, DS-SLQ may be useful for measuring vision and hearing spatial localization abilities and predicting the better sense for completing different spatial localization tasks.

Relationship Between Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity: Differences Due to Eye Disease.

Purpose: Visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) characterize different aspects of visual function. Whereas VA is a standard test in routine eye exams and clinical trials, CS is often not included. We investigated the pathology-specific dissociation between VA and CS by quantifying and comparing the relationship between these two measures in common ocular pathologies. Methods: VA and CS data were assembled from 1113 subjects, including groups with cataract (n = 450), age-related macular degeneration (AMD; n = 232), glaucoma (n = 100), retinitis pigmentosa (RP; n = 87), and normal ocular health (n = 244). VA and CS were measured by the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart and Pelli-Robson chart, respectively. Results: Even when VA was relatively normal (<0.3 logMAR), the four ocular pathology groups showed quantitatively different mean CS deficits relative to normal controls, ranging from -0.01 log units for cataract to 0.23 log units for RP. When the entire range of VA was considered, the corresponding deficits in CS were noticeably different across these four groups, being least for cataract and progressively more severe for glaucoma, AMD, and RP. For every 1.0 logMAR loss of VA, the corresponding deficit in CS ranged from 0.22 logCS for cataract to 0.97 logCS for RP. Conclusions: The quantitative relationship between VA and CS depends on the ocular pathology. CS appears to provide valuable complementary information to VA in the early detection of eye disease and when evaluating visual impairment.