Pilot study of a pedestrian collision detection test for a multisite trial of field expansion devices for hemianopia.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Optometry and Vision Science Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1097/OPX.0000000000002152
Alex R Bowers, Sailaja Manda, Sandhya Shekar, Alex D Hwang, Jae-Hyun Jung, Eli Peli
{"title":"Pilot study of a pedestrian collision detection test for a multisite trial of field expansion devices for hemianopia.","authors":"Alex R Bowers, Sailaja Manda, Sandhya Shekar, Alex D Hwang, Jae-Hyun Jung, Eli Peli","doi":"10.1097/OPX.0000000000002152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Significance: </strong>Performance-based outcome measures are crucial for clinical trials of field expansion devices. We implemented a test simulating a real-world mobility situation, focusing on detection of a colliding pedestrian among multiple noncolliding pedestrians, suitable for measuring the effects of homonymous hemianopia and assistive devices in clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In preparation for deploying the test in a multisite clinical trial, we conducted a pilot study to gather preliminary data on blind-side collision detection performance with multiperiscopic peripheral prisms compared with Fresnel peripheral prisms. We tested the hypothesis that detection rates for colliding pedestrians approaching on a 40° bearing angle (close to the highest collision risk when walking) would be higher with 100Δ oblique multiperiscopic (≈42° expansion) than 65Δ oblique Fresnel peripheral prisms (≈32° expansion).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six participants with homonymous hemianopia completed the test with and without each type of prism glasses, after using them in daily mobility for a minimum of 4 weeks. The test, presented as a video on a large screen, simulated walking through a busy shopping mall. Colliding pedestrians approached from the left or the right on a bearing angle of 20 or 40°.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, blind-side detection was only 23% without prisms but improved to 73% with prisms. For multiperiscopic prisms, blind-side detection was significantly higher with than without prisms at 40° (88 vs. 0%) and 20° (75 vs. 0%). For Fresnel peripheral prisms, blind-side detection rates were not significantly higher with than without prisms at 40° (38 vs. 0%) but were significantly higher with prisms at 20° (94 vs. 56%). At 40°, detection rates were significantly higher with multiperiscopic than Fresnel prisms (88 vs. 38%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The collision detection test is suitable for evaluating the effects of hemianopia and prism glasses on collision detection, confirming its readiness to serve as the primary outcome measure in the upcoming clinical trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":19649,"journal":{"name":"Optometry and Vision Science","volume":"101 6","pages":"408-416"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11245167/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Optometry and Vision Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002152","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Significance: Performance-based outcome measures are crucial for clinical trials of field expansion devices. We implemented a test simulating a real-world mobility situation, focusing on detection of a colliding pedestrian among multiple noncolliding pedestrians, suitable for measuring the effects of homonymous hemianopia and assistive devices in clinical trials.

Purpose: In preparation for deploying the test in a multisite clinical trial, we conducted a pilot study to gather preliminary data on blind-side collision detection performance with multiperiscopic peripheral prisms compared with Fresnel peripheral prisms. We tested the hypothesis that detection rates for colliding pedestrians approaching on a 40° bearing angle (close to the highest collision risk when walking) would be higher with 100Δ oblique multiperiscopic (≈42° expansion) than 65Δ oblique Fresnel peripheral prisms (≈32° expansion).

Methods: Six participants with homonymous hemianopia completed the test with and without each type of prism glasses, after using them in daily mobility for a minimum of 4 weeks. The test, presented as a video on a large screen, simulated walking through a busy shopping mall. Colliding pedestrians approached from the left or the right on a bearing angle of 20 or 40°.

Results: Overall, blind-side detection was only 23% without prisms but improved to 73% with prisms. For multiperiscopic prisms, blind-side detection was significantly higher with than without prisms at 40° (88 vs. 0%) and 20° (75 vs. 0%). For Fresnel peripheral prisms, blind-side detection rates were not significantly higher with than without prisms at 40° (38 vs. 0%) but were significantly higher with prisms at 20° (94 vs. 56%). At 40°, detection rates were significantly higher with multiperiscopic than Fresnel prisms (88 vs. 38%).

Conclusions: The collision detection test is suitable for evaluating the effects of hemianopia and prism glasses on collision detection, confirming its readiness to serve as the primary outcome measure in the upcoming clinical trial.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
行人碰撞检测试验的试点研究,用于治疗偏盲的现场扩展装置的多站点试验。
意义重大:基于性能的结果测量对于现场扩展设备的临床试验至关重要。目的:为了准备在多地点临床试验中部署该测试,我们进行了一项试点研究,以收集有关多潜望镜外围棱镜与菲涅尔外围棱镜相比盲侧碰撞检测性能的初步数据。我们测试了以下假设:100Δ斜多潜望镜(≈42°扩展)比 65Δ斜菲涅尔外围棱镜(≈32°扩展)对以 40°方位角(接近步行时最高碰撞风险)接近的碰撞行人的检测率更高:方法:六名患有同性半身不遂的参与者在使用每种棱镜眼镜进行日常活动至少 4 周后,分别在佩戴和不佩戴的情况下完成测试。测试以视频的形式在大屏幕上呈现,模拟在繁忙的购物中心中行走。碰撞的行人从左侧或右侧以 20° 或 40° 的方位角靠近:总体而言,不使用棱镜时,盲侧检测率仅为 23%,而使用棱镜后,盲侧检测率提高到 73%。对于多潜望镜棱镜,在 40°(88% 对 0%)和 20°(75% 对 0%)时,使用棱镜的盲侧检测率明显高于不使用棱镜的盲侧检测率。对于菲涅尔周边棱镜,在 40° 时,有棱镜的盲侧检测率并不比没有棱镜的盲侧检测率高(38% 对 0%),但在 20° 时,有棱镜的盲侧检测率明显更高(94% 对 56%)。在 40° 时,使用多潜望镜的检测率明显高于使用菲涅尔棱镜的检测率(88% 对 38%):碰撞检测测试适用于评估偏盲和棱镜眼镜对碰撞检测的影响,证实它可以作为即将进行的临床试验的主要结果测量指标。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Optometry and Vision Science
Optometry and Vision Science 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
210
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Optometry and Vision Science is the monthly peer-reviewed scientific publication of the American Academy of Optometry, publishing original research since 1924. Optometry and Vision Science is an internationally recognized source for education and information on current discoveries in optometry, physiological optics, vision science, and related fields. The journal considers original contributions that advance clinical practice, vision science, and public health. Authors should remember that the journal reaches readers worldwide and their submissions should be relevant and of interest to a broad audience. Topical priorities include, but are not limited to: clinical and laboratory research, evidence-based reviews, contact lenses, ocular growth and refractive error development, eye movements, visual function and perception, biology of the eye and ocular disease, epidemiology and public health, biomedical optics and instrumentation, novel and important clinical observations and treatments, and optometric education.
期刊最新文献
Case report: Acute macular neuroretinopathy post-COVID-19 infection. Exploring cognitive overload in adults with visual impairment: The association between concentration and fatigue. A pilot study of the impact of repeated blink refrainment on ocular surface temperature and the interblink period. Extended release of ciprofloxacin from commercial silicone-hydrogel and conventional hydrogel contact lenses containing vitamin E diffusion barriers. Efficacy comparison of repeated low-level red-light therapy and orthokeratology lenses for myopia control.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1