A paradigm for characterizing motion misperception in people with typical vision and low vision.

PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a paradigm that can efficiently characterize motion percepts in people with low vision and compare their responses with well-known misperceptions made by people with typical vision when targets are hard to see. METHODS: We recruited a small cohort of individuals with reduced acuity and contrast sensitivity (n = 5) as well as a comparison cohort with typical vision (n = 5) to complete a psychophysical study. Study participants were asked to judge the motion direction of a tilted rhombus that was either high or low contrast. In a series of trials, the rhombus oscillated vertically, horizontally, or diagonally. Participants indicated the perceived motion direction using a number wheel with 12 possible directions, and statistical tests were used to examine response biases. RESULTS: All participants with typical vision showed systematic misperceptions well predicted by a Bayesian inference model. Specifically, their perception of vertical or horizontal motion was biased toward directions orthogonal to the long axis of the rhombus. They had larger biases for hard-to-see (low contrast) stimuli. Two participants with low vision had a similar bias, but with no difference between high- and low-contrast stimuli. The other participants with low vision were unbiased in their percepts or biased in the opposite direction. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that some people with low vision may misperceive motion in a systematic way similar to people with typical vision. However, we observed large individual differences. Future work will aim to uncover reasons for such differences and identify aspects of vision that predict susceptibility.

Low Vision Impairs Implicit Sensorimotor Adaptation in Response to Small Errors, But Not Large Errors.

Successful goal-directed actions require constant fine-tuning of the motor system. This fine-tuning is thought to rely on an implicit adaptation process that is driven by sensory prediction errors (e.g., where you see your hand after reaching vs. where you expected it to be). Individuals with low vision experience challenges with visuomotor control, but whether low vision disrupts motor adaptation is unknown. To explore this question, we assessed individuals with low vision and matched controls with normal vision on a visuomotor task designed to isolate implicit adaptation. We found that low vision was associated with attenuated implicit adaptation only for small visual errors, but not for large visual errors. This result highlights important constraints underlying how low-fidelity visual information is processed by the sensorimotor system to enable successful implicit adaptation.

Using augmented reality to cue obstacles for people with low vision.

Detecting and avoiding obstacles while navigating can pose a challenge for people with low vision, but augmented reality (AR) has the potential to assist by enhancing obstacle visibility. Perceptual and user experience research is needed to understand how to craft effective AR visuals for this purpose. We developed a prototype AR application capable of displaying multiple kinds of visual cues for obstacles on an optical see-through head-mounted display. We assessed the usability of these cues via a study in which participants with low vision navigated an obstacle course. The results suggest that 3D world-locked AR cues were superior to directional heads-up cues for most participants during this activity.

Longitudinal Trends in Case Histories and Rehabilitative Device Assessments at Low Vision Examinations.

SIGNIFICANCE: Understanding longitudinal changes in why individuals frequent low-vision clinics is crucial for ensuring that patient care keeps current with changing technology and changing lifestyles. Among other findings, our results suggest that reading remains a prevailing patient complaint, with shifting priorities toward technology-related topics. PURPOSE: This study aimed to understand changes in patient priorities and patient care in low vision over the past decade. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of examination records (2009 to 2019, 3470 examinations) from two U.S. low-vision clinics. Automated word searches summarized two properties of the records: topics discussed during the case history and types of rehabilitative devices assessed. Logistic regression was used to model the effects of examination year, patient age, patient sex, and level of visual impairment. RESULTS: Collapsing across all years, the most common topic discussed was reading (78%), followed by light-related topics (71%) and technology (59%). Whereas the odds of discussing reading trended downward over the decade (odds ratio, 0.57; P = .03), technology, social interaction, mobility, and driving trended upward (odds ratios, 4.53, 3.31, 2.71, and 1.95; all P 's < 0.001). The most frequently assessed devices were tinted lenses (95%). Over time, video magnifier and spectacle assessments trended downward (odds ratios, 0.64 and 0.72; P = .004, 0.04), whereas assessments of other optical aids increased. The data indicate several consistent differences among patient demographics. CONCLUSIONS: Reading is likely to remain a prevailing patient complaint, but an increase in technology-related topics suggests shifting priorities, particularly in younger demographics. "Low-tech" optical aids have remained prominent in low-vision care even as "high-tech" assistive devices in the marketplace continue to advance.

The Berkeley Rudimentary Vision Test.

PURPOSE: Very poor visual acuity often cannot be measured with letter charts even at close viewing distances. The Berkeley Rudimentary Vision Test (BRVT) was developed as a simple test to extend the range of visual acuity measurement beyond the limits of letter charts by systematically simplifying the visual task and using close viewing distances to achieve large angular sizes. The test has three pairs of hinged cards, 25 cm square. One card-pair has four single tumbling E (STE) optotypes at sizes 100 M, 63 M, 40 M, and 25 M. Another card-pair has four grating acuity (GA) targets at sizes 200 M, 125 M, 80 M, and 50 M. The third card-pair has a test of white field projection (WFP) and a test of black white discrimination (BWD). As a demonstration of feasibility, a population of subjects with severe visual impairment was tested with the BRVT. METHODS: Adults with severe visual impairments from a wide variety of causes were recruited from three different rehabilitation programs. Vision measurements were made on 54 eyes from 37 subjects; test administration times were measured. RESULTS: For this population, letter chart visual acuity could be measured on 24 eyes. Measurements of visual acuity for STE targets were made for 18 eyes and with GA targets, for two eyes. Five eyes had WFP, and one had BWD. Four had light perception only. The median testing time with the BRVT was 2.5 min. DISCUSSION: The BRVT extends the range of visual acuity up to logMAR = 2.60 (20/8000) for STEs, to logMAR = 2.90 (20/16,000) for gratings and includes the WFP and BWD tests. CONCLUSIONS: The BRVT is a simple and efficient test of spatial vision that, with 13 increments, extends the range of measurement from the limits of the letter chart up to light perception.