Comparison of visual function analysis of people with low vision using three different models of augmented reality devices

Sarika Gopalakrishnan, Ronald Schuchard, Donald Fletcher, Arathy Kartha
{"title":"Comparison of visual function analysis of people with low vision using three different models of augmented reality devices","authors":"Sarika Gopalakrishnan, Ronald Schuchard, Donald Fletcher, Arathy Kartha","doi":"10.1101/2024.09.11.24313484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We compared visual function in individuals with low vision (>20/60) using three different models of augmented reality (AR) devices: Ziru, IrisVision, and NuEyes-Pro3. The distance visual acuity (VA) was measured in high luminance high contrast (HLHC), high luminance low contrast (HLLC), low luminance high contrast (LLHC), and low luminance low contrast (LLLC) settings. The other tests were near VA, distance and near contrast sensitivity (CS), color vision, depth perception and indoor navigation. The change in visual function without and with AR devices was analyzed. Out of 27 participants, 17 were female. The mean age was 66.7 (18.2) years. The median baseline VA was 0.66 (0.49) logMAR in HLHC, 0.87 (0.54) logMAR in HLLC, 0.84 (0.67) logMAR in LLHC and 1.04 (0.34) logMAR in LLLC. The median baseline near VA was 0.55(0.4) logMAR, distance and near CS was 1.10(0.26) logCS, and 1.20(0.30) logCS respectively. Distance and near vision showed significant differences with both Ziru and IrisVision (p<0.01), but not with NuEyes. There was a significant change in CS using Ziru and IrisVision for both distance and near (p<0.05) but both reduced significantly with NuEyes (p<0.01). The baseline functional vision score (FVS) was 45.76 (44.47) which improved to 79.04 (33.98) with Ziru and 76.14 (33.76) with IrisVision significantly, whereas it significantly reduced to 35.00 (33.97) with NuEyes (p<0.01). During the objective identification task on the indoor mobility course using AR devices, head-level objects were missed more compared to waist or floor-level objects across all three models. Majority of the visual functions improved with Ziru and IrisVision, with limited improvement in certain lighting condition of distance visual acuity with NuEyes.","PeriodicalId":501390,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Ophthalmology","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.11.24313484","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We compared visual function in individuals with low vision (>20/60) using three different models of augmented reality (AR) devices: Ziru, IrisVision, and NuEyes-Pro3. The distance visual acuity (VA) was measured in high luminance high contrast (HLHC), high luminance low contrast (HLLC), low luminance high contrast (LLHC), and low luminance low contrast (LLLC) settings. The other tests were near VA, distance and near contrast sensitivity (CS), color vision, depth perception and indoor navigation. The change in visual function without and with AR devices was analyzed. Out of 27 participants, 17 were female. The mean age was 66.7 (18.2) years. The median baseline VA was 0.66 (0.49) logMAR in HLHC, 0.87 (0.54) logMAR in HLLC, 0.84 (0.67) logMAR in LLHC and 1.04 (0.34) logMAR in LLLC. The median baseline near VA was 0.55(0.4) logMAR, distance and near CS was 1.10(0.26) logCS, and 1.20(0.30) logCS respectively. Distance and near vision showed significant differences with both Ziru and IrisVision (p<0.01), but not with NuEyes. There was a significant change in CS using Ziru and IrisVision for both distance and near (p<0.05) but both reduced significantly with NuEyes (p<0.01). The baseline functional vision score (FVS) was 45.76 (44.47) which improved to 79.04 (33.98) with Ziru and 76.14 (33.76) with IrisVision significantly, whereas it significantly reduced to 35.00 (33.97) with NuEyes (p<0.01). During the objective identification task on the indoor mobility course using AR devices, head-level objects were missed more compared to waist or floor-level objects across all three models. Majority of the visual functions improved with Ziru and IrisVision, with limited improvement in certain lighting condition of distance visual acuity with NuEyes.
使用三种不同型号的增强现实设备对低视力者进行视觉功能分析的比较
我们使用三种不同型号的增强现实(AR)设备对低视力(20/60)患者的视觉功能进行了比较:Ziru、IrisVision 和 NuEyes-Pro3。在高亮度高对比度(HLHC)、高亮度低对比度(HLLC)、低亮度高对比度(LLHC)和低亮度低对比度(LLLC)设置下测量了远距离视力(VA)。其他测试包括近距离视力、远距离和近距离对比敏感度(CS)、色觉、深度知觉和室内导航。测试分析了不使用和使用 AR 设备时视觉功能的变化。在 27 名参与者中,17 人为女性。平均年龄为 66.7 (18.2) 岁。HLHC 的基线视力中值为 0.66 (0.49) logMAR,HLLC 的基线视力中值为 0.87 (0.54) logMAR,LLHC 的基线视力中值为 0.84 (0.67) logMAR,LLLC 的基线视力中值为 1.04 (0.34) logMAR。近视力基线中位数为 0.55(0.4) logMAR,远视力和近视力基线中位数分别为 1.10(0.26) logCS 和 1.20(0.30) logCS。Ziru 和 IrisVision 的远视力和近视力有显著差异(p<0.01),而 NuEyes 则没有。使用 Ziru 和 IrisVision 时,远视和近视的 CS 均有明显变化(p<0.05),但使用 NuEyes 时,CS 均有明显下降(p<0.01)。基线功能视力分数(FVS)为 45.76(44.47),使用 Ziru 和 IrisVision 后分别显著提高到 79.04(33.98)和 76.14(33.76),而使用 NuEyes 后则显著降低到 35.00(33.97)(p<0.01)。在使用 AR 设备进行室内移动课程的目标识别任务中,与腰部或地面水平的物体相比,所有三种模型都更容易错过头部水平的物体。Ziru和IrisVision的大部分视觉功能都得到了改善,而NuEyes在特定照明条件下的远距离视敏度改善有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信