Search

SignificanceFuture work should develop and evaluate interventional strategies to help overcome visual and health-related barriers to travel in visually impaired seniors and mitigate adverse impacts of loneliness for those who do not leave town.PurposeLife space refers to the area in which a person travels within a given time period. We explored whether demographics, vision, and/or health characteristics were related to restrictions in self-reported life space for visually impaired seniors.MethodsVisually impaired (n = 114) clinical trial participants aged ≥55 years learned visual assistive iPhone apps and completed the following baseline questionnaires: Life Space, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, University of California, Los Angeles Loneliness Scale, and New-General Self-efficacy Scale. Multiple logistic regressions evaluated associations between life space and patient factors after accounting for their distance to the next county or state.ResultsDuring 2021 to 2023, 17%, 43%, and 70% of participants had not left their town, county, or state, respectively, in the past 3 months, or planned to in the next 3 months. Those with reduced distance best-corrected visual acuity had greater odds of not leaving the county in these time frames (odds ratio [OR] = 3.5; p=0.04). Minority race was associated with greater odds of not leaving town or the county in the past 2 weeks or future 3 months (OR = 4.3 to 6.4; p=0.009 to 0.049). Increased self-efficacy was associated with reduced odds of not leaving the state in the past 3 months, next 3 months, or past and/or future 3 months (OR = 0.54 to 0.55; p=0.02 to 0.03). Better physical function was associated with reduced odds of not leaving the state in the past 2 weeks or 3 months (OR = 0.96 to 0.98; p=0.01 to 0.04). Increased loneliness was related to greater odds of not leaving town in the past and/or future 3 months (OR = 1.8 to 2.0; p=0.007 to 0.009).ConclusionsMinority race, reduced vision, self-efficacy, and physical health were related to life space restrictions in this cohort of visually impaired seniors, whereas loneliness was greater among those who were not leaving town.

SignificanceA majority of visually impaired older adults were able to learn to proficiently use visual-assistive iPhone applications (apps) following a median 1 hour and/or multiple training sessions, which should be considered when planning vision rehabilitation service delivery, including the option for remote telerehabilitation for those who prefer that modality.PurposeOlder adults with low vision are increasingly using technology to improve their visual functioning. We examined whether age-related comorbidities were potential barriers to success in learning to use visual-assistive apps on a smartphone.MethodsA clinical trial assessed visual-assistive apps in 116 older adults aged 55+ years (mean [standard deviation], 72 [10] years). Subjects were randomized to use an app (SuperVision+, Seeing AI, or Aira) preloaded to a loaner iPhone and completed one-on-one training. App proficiency was measured by the participant's ability to use the iPhone/app without cueing at the end of training sessions. Training time was recorded for the initial session and totaled after subsequent sessions. Multiple regression models explored significant factors associated with training time and proficiency.ResultsMedian initial and total training times were 45 and 60 minutes, respectively. Increased initial and total training times were both significantly related to increased age (p

SignificanceVision rehabilitation providers tend to recommend handheld, illuminated optical magnifiers for short-duration spot reading tasks, but this study indicates that they are also a viable option to improve sustained, continuous text reading (e.g., books or magazines), especially for visually impaired adults who read slowly with only spectacle-based near correction.PurposeThe utility of handheld optical magnifiers for sustained silent reading tasks involving normal-sized continuous text could be a valuable indication that is not recognized by vision rehabilitation providers and patients.MethodsHandheld, illuminated optical magnifiers were dispensed to 29 visually impaired adults who completed the sustained silent reading test by phone at baseline without the new magnifier and 1 month after using the magnifier. Reading speed in words per minute (wpm) was calculated from the time to read each page and then averaged across up to 10 pages or determined for the fastest read page (maximum).ResultsFrom baseline without the magnifier to 1 month with the magnifier, there was a significant improvement in mean reading speed by 14 wpm (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 24; P = .02) and for maximum reading speed by 18 wpm (95% CI, 5.4 to 30; P = .005) on average across participants. Participants who had slower baseline reading speeds without the magnifier demonstrated significantly greater improvements in mean and maximum reading speeds on average with the magnifier (95% CI, 8 to 32 [ P = .003]; 95% CI, 4 to 36 [ P = .02]). A significantly greater number of pages were read with the new magnifier than without it (Wilcoxon z = -2.5; P = .01). A significantly greater number of pages were read with the magnifier by participants who read fewer pages at baseline (95% CI, 0.57 to 5.6; P = .02) or had greater improvements in mean reading speed (95% CI, 0.57 to 5.6; P = .007).ConclusionsMany visually impaired adults read more quickly and/or read a greater number of pages after using a new magnifier for a month than compared to without it. The largest gains occurred among those with more difficulty at baseline, indicating the potential to improve reading rates with magnifiers for those with greater deficits.

SignificanceUnderstanding 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.PurposeThis study aimed to understand changes in patient priorities and patient care in low vision over the past decade.MethodsWe 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.ResultsCollapsing 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.ConclusionsReading 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.

SignificanceThis pilot study provides some insight about the potential benefits of telerehabilitation training to improve the reading ability of adults with low vision using magnifiers, to spur future work with larger groups. Telerehabilitation services can be implemented clinically to facilitate access to follow-up care for low vision.PurposeA recent Cochrane systematic review revealed that there are no published visual function outcomes for telerehabilitation with handheld magnification devices for low vision; thus, this study aimed to provide evidence for its preliminary efficacy.MethodsOne to 4 months after receiving a new magnification device (i.e., handheld or stand optical magnifier or portable electronic magnifier), 14 adult low vision patients (with any visual acuity level or ocular diagnosis) received two training sessions at home via telerehabilitation with their vision rehabilitation provider located remotely in-office. Telerehabilitation included a loaner smartphone for Zoom videoconferencing with remote control access software. The Minnesota Low-Vision Reading Test was administered during each of the telerehabilitation sessions to assess near reading (acuity and speed) with the new magnifier.ResultsMean reading acuity with the magnifier was 0.17 logMAR across subjects before training at telerehabilitation session 1, which significantly improved to 0.09 on average a few weeks later at telerehabilitation session 2 (95%confidence interval, -0.001 to -0.16; P = .047). Logarithm reading speed with the magnifier for the reading acuity level at session 1 improved significantly by 0.18 log words per minute on average for the same text size at session 2 (95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.29; P = .002). With the magnifier at session 2, 71% of participants gained at least 0.1 log unit in reading acuity, and half improved by >0.01 in log reading speed; all participants with increased reading speed also improved in reading acuity ( P = .02).ConclusionsThese preliminary data support that telerehabilitation can enhance reading ability and efficiency with newly prescribed magnifiers as an alternative option to in-office vision rehabilitation.

SignificanceIdentification of modifiable barriers to low vision rehabilitation (LVR) can inform efforts to improve practice management of patients with low vision (LV), through, for example, targeted educational programs for optometrists who do not practice LVR.PurposeMild vision loss (20/25 to 20/70) is increasing in prevalence among the aging population, yet it is unclear whether near-reading complaints (the highest presenting chief complaint) are being addressed. Studies of LVR provision by U.S. optometrists are currently lacking. This study elucidated self-reported optometric practice patterns for patients with mild vision loss.MethodsAnonymous surveys were completed by 229 actively practicing optometrists across the United States. The survey inquired about the frequency of providing LVR for mild vision loss patients and the top barriers that prevent them from offering LVR management (including optical aids or referral).ResultsCompared with those moderately actively practicing LVR, twice as many (2.08×) practitioners who do not practice any LVR reported that they never prescribe near-reading add power of 4 D or greater for mild vision loss (P < .001). Among those who do not practice LVR, 39 and 11% indicated that they never prescribe any LVR management strategies for patients with visual acuity of 20/25 to 20/40 and 20/50 to 20/70, respectively. The two most commonly reported barriers to LVR indicated by about half of respondents were "cost of the LV exam and/or devices" and that "patients are not interested or would not go to an LV exam." Nearly a third of providers reported that "it is not feasible to stock magnifiers in office."ConclusionsA sizable group of non-LVR providers in the United States may not be addressing the near-vision needs of patients with mild vision loss. Several of the reported top barriers are potentially modifiable through the development of targeted educational programs for providers.

SignificanceFor people with limited vision, wearable displays hold the potential to digitally enhance visual function. As these display technologies advance, it is important to understand their promise and limitations as vision aids.PurposeThe aim of this study was to test the potential of a consumer augmented reality (AR) device for improving the functional vision of people with near-complete vision loss.MethodsAn AR application that translates spatial information into high-contrast visual patterns was developed. Two experiments assessed the efficacy of the application to improve vision: an exploratory study with four visually impaired participants and a main controlled study with participants with simulated vision loss (n = 48). In both studies, performance was tested on a range of visual tasks (identifying the location, pose and gesture of a person, identifying objects, and moving around in an unfamiliar space). Participants' accuracy and confidence were compared on these tasks with and without augmented vision, as well as their subjective responses about ease of mobility.ResultsIn the main study, the AR application was associated with substantially improved accuracy and confidence in object recognition (all P < .001) and to a lesser degree in gesture recognition (P < .05). There was no significant change in performance on identifying body poses or in subjective assessments of mobility, as compared with a control group.ConclusionsConsumer AR devices may soon be able to support applications that improve the functional vision of users for some tasks. In our study, both artificially impaired participants and participants with near-complete vision loss performed tasks that they could not do without the AR system. Current limitations in system performance and form factor, as well as the risk of overconfidence, will need to be overcome.

Following the onset of central vision loss, most patients develop an eccentric retinal location outside the affected macular region, the preferred retinal locus (PRL), as their new reference for visual tasks. The first goal of this article is to present behavioral evidence showing the presence of experience-dependent plasticity in people with central vision loss. The evidence includes the presence of oculomotor re-referencing of fixational saccades to the PRL; the characteristics of the shape of the crowding zone (spatial region within which the presence of other objects affects the recognition of a target) at the PRL are more "foveal-like" instead of resembling those of the normal periphery; and the change in the shape of the crowding zone at a para-PRL location that includes a component referenced to the PRL. These findings suggest that there is a shift in the referencing locus of the oculomotor and the sensory visual system from the fovea to the PRL for people with central vision loss, implying that the visual system for these individuals is still plastic and can be modified through experiences. The second goal of the article is to demonstrate the feasibility of applying perceptual learning, which capitalizes on the presence of plasticity, as a tool to improve functional vision for people with central vision loss. Our finding that visual function could improve with perceptual learning presents an exciting possibility for the development of an alternative rehabilitative strategy for people with central vision loss.