The Effect of Varied Microperimetric Biofeedback Training in Central Vision Loss: A Randomized Trial.

SIGNIFICANCE: This investigation reports for the first time the effects of different microperimetric biofeedback strategies in visually impaired subjects with central field loss. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of two MP-3 microperimeter biofeedback strategies on the visual performance of subjects with central vision loss. Moreover, changes between the groups were compared to provide indications of practice with biofeedback stimulation in subjects with central vision loss. METHODS: Using simple randomization, 19 participants were trained according to two different biofeedback stimulation approaches using the MP-3 microperimeter. Patients were assigned to two different groups: subjects trained for 2 days a week (group A) and 3 days a week (group B). The patients in each group were randomized to perform a total of 10 or 15 sessions. RESULTS: Fixation stability increased from 4.5 ± 2.8 to 2.3 ± 2.2° 2 and from 8.2 ± 6.9 to 1.4 ± 1° 2 after 2 and 3 weekly biofeedback training sessions, respectively ( P < .05). Biofeedback training induced a significant improvement of 40.7 and 29.4% in reading speed for groups A and B, respectively ( P < .05). A comparison of two weekly biofeedback training sessions with three weekly biofeedback sessions demonstrated greater fixation stability in group B ( P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study concludes that a biofeedback intervention is effective in enhancing oculomotor control in patients with central vision loss. In our study, a more intensive biofeedback strategy seemed to produce significantly better results in terms of functional vision parameters.

Biofeedback stimulation in the visually impaired: a systematic review of literature.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that approximately 1.3 billion people live with some form of distance or near visual impairment. Numerous studies have been carried out to evaluate the effects of biofeedback (BF) and establish if it could be a useful tool in vision rehabilitation for various eye diseases. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed: 1) to examine the current evidence of BF efficacy for the rehabilitation of the visually impaired and 2) to describe methodological variations used in previous BF studies to provide recommendations for vision rehabilitation interventions. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in the Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases to collect documents published between January 2000 and May 2020. Of the 1,960 studies identified, 43 met the criteria for inclusion. The following information was collected from each study: sample size, control group, any eye disease, apparatus used, frequency and number of sessions of BF, main outcomes of training and whether a follow-up was conducted. The first group included studies published as scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. The second group included abstracts of studies presented at peer-reviewed conferences. Publications were also grouped according to the eye disease treated. RESULTS: 25 articles and 18 peer-reviewed conference abstracts (PRCAs) were included in this review. BF stimulation is a commonly used technique for the treatment of visual impairment caused by macular disease. Most BF studies evaluate the effect of training on the preferred retinal locus (PRL), particularly with regard to fixation location and stability. Across these studies, participants who received BF intervention improved fixation stability and reading speed. High variability in the number of sessions and the duration of BF training was found. Most studies did not use a control group. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review present evidence for biofeedback treatment in vision rehabilitation, with improved oculomotor abilities. Currently, it is not possible to formulate evidence-based recommendations for a standard training procedure due to the poor quality of existing randomised controlled trials. High-quality studies are needed to develop standard protocols for a range of eye diseases.

Biofeedback stimulation in patients with age-related macular degeneration: comparison between 2 different methods.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in patient's visual performance after rehabilitation training with 2 different biofeedback training programs offered by the MP-1 microperimeter. Spontaneous retinal location of preferred retinal loci (PRLs) and fixation stability are not always optimal for best visual performances. MP-1 microperimeter biofeedback techniques have been suggested as modalities for training for better fixation stability and to find a better location of the new PRL in a more useful area of the retina in nonoptimal cases. The MP-1 microperimeter offers different biofeedback strategies, such as acoustic biofeedback and structured light stimulus plus acoustic biofeedback. DESIGN: Retrospective study. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty subjects affected by age-related macular degeneration with absolute central scotoma. METHODS: A standard protocol of examination before and after visual rehabilitation training was performed on all study subjects. Assessment included demographics data, visual acuity, fixation stability, retinal sensitivity, and reading speed. Rehabilitation training was performed with standard and structured stimulus biofeedback. The whole sample was divided into 2 groups of 15 patients attending the 2 different stimulation training biofeedback. RESULTS: Mean reading speed was found to be significantly increased for both groups (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01). Also, a statistically significant improvement of fixation stability was registered for both groups (p < 0.01). Only patients trained with the flickering pattern biofeedback stimulation increased retinal sensitivity (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Both regular biofeedback and flickering pattern biofeedback training seem to improve visual functions. More benefits seem to be accrued, however, with flickering pattern biofeedback training.