A novel, wearable, electronic visual aid to assist those with reduced peripheral vision

English version

Autoři: Ffion E. Brown ^aff001; Janice Sutton ^aff001; Ho M. Yuen ^aff002; Dylan Green ^aff003; Spencer Van Dorn ^aff003; Terry Braun ^aff003; Angela J. Cree ^aff001; Stephen R. Russell ^aff003; Andrew J. Lotery ^aff001
Působiště autorů: Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton, Tremona Road, Southampton, England, United Kingdom ^aff001; Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton, Tremona Road, Southampton, England, United Kingdom ^aff002; Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States of America ^aff003; Southampton Eye Unit, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, England, United Kingdom ^aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223755

Souhrn

Purpose

To determine whether visual-tactile sensory substitution utilizing the Low-vision Enhancement Optoelectronic (LEO) Belt prototype is suitable as a new visual aid for those with reduced peripheral vision by assessing mobility performance and user opinions.

Methods

Sighted subjects (n = 20) and subjects with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) (n = 6) were recruited. The LEO Belt was evaluated on two cohorts: normally sighted subjects wearing goggles to artificially reduce peripheral vision to simulate stages of RP progression, and subjects with advanced visual field limitation from RP. Mobility speed and accuracy was assessed using simple mazes, with and without the LEO Belt, to determine its usefulness across disease severities and lighting conditions.

Results

Sighted subjects wearing most narrowed field goggles simulating most advanced RP had increased mobility accuracy (44% mean reduction in errors, p = 0.014) and self-reported confidence (77% mean increase, p = 0.004) when using the LEO Belt. Additionally, use of LEO doubled mobility accuracy for RP subjects with remaining visual fields between 10° and 20°. Further, in dim lighting, confidence scores for this group also doubled. By patient reported outcomes, subjects largely deemed the device comfortable (100%), easy to use (92.3%) and thought it had potential future benefit as a visual aid (96.2%). However, regardless of severity of vision loss or simulated vision loss, all subjects were slower to complete the mazes using the device.

Conclusions

The LEO Belt improves mobility accuracy and therefore confidence in those with severely restricted peripheral vision. The LEO Belt’s positive user feedback suggests it has potential to become the next generation of visual aid for visually impaired individuals. Given the novelty of this approach, we expect navigation speeds may improve with experience.

Klíčová slova:

Pets and companion animals – Light – Visual impairments – Vision – Vibration – Visual acuity – Visual system – Retinitis pigmentosa

Zdroje

1. Liew G, Michaelides M, Bunce C. A comparison of the causes of blindness certifications in England and Wales in working age adults (16–64 years), 1999–2000 with 2009–2010. BMJ Open. 2014;4(e004015). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004015 24525390

2. Russell S, Bennett J, Wellman JA, Chung DC, Yu Z-F, Tillman A, et al. Efficacy and safety of voretigene neparvovec (AAV2-hRPE65v2) in patients with RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophy: a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. The Lancet. 2017;390(10097):849–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31868-8.

3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA approves novel gene therapy to treat patients with a rare form of inherited vision loss [WebContent]. 2017 [28th August 2018]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm589467.htm.

4. Elmannai W, Elleithy K. Sensor-based assistive devices for visually-impaired people: current status, challenges, and future directions. Sensors (Basel). 2017;17(3). Epub 2017/03/14. doi: 10.3390/s17030565 28287451; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5375851.

5. Kim Y, Harders M, Gassert R. Identification of Vibrotactile Patterns Encoding Obstacle Distance Information. IEEE Transactions on Haptics. 2015;8(3).

6. Intel Corporation. Intel RealSense Spatial Awareness Wearable (IRSAW) GitHub2015 [27th August 2018]. Available from: https://github.com/IRSAW/IRSAW.

7. Kaplan K. Technology Brings Spatial Awareness to People with Vision Loss: iQ by Intel; 2017 [updated 2017-02-17; cited 2017 24th November 2017]. Available from: https://iq.intel.com/technology-brings-spatial-awareness-to-the-visually-impaired/.

8. Pundlik S, Tomasi M, Luo G. Evaluation of a Portable Collision Warning Device for Patients With Peripheral Vision Loss in an Obstacle Course. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2015;56(4):2571–9. Epub 2015/03/20. doi: 10.1167/iovs.14-15935 25788655.

9. Haddrill M, Heiting G. Peripheral Vision Loss: Tunnel Vision Causes and Treatments AllAboutVision.com: @AllAboutVision; 2017 [cited 2017 11/11/2017]. Available from: http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/peripheral-vision.htm.

10. Nation Eye Institute. Facts About Retinitis Pigmentosa: National Eye Institute; 2018 [3rd July 2018]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/.

11. Grover S, Fishman GA, Brown J. Patterns of visual field progression in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(6):1069–75. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(98)96009-2 9627658

12. Herse P. Retinitis pigmentosa: visual function and multidisciplinary management. Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 2005;88(5):335–50. Epub 2005/11/01. 16255692.

13. Fahim AT, Daiger SP, Weleber RG. Nonsyndromic Retinitis Pigmentosa Overview. In: Adam M, Ardinger H, Pagon R, editors. Gene Reviews® [Internet]. Seattle: University of Washington, Seattle; 2000 [updated 2017].

14. Ferrari S, Di Iorio E, Barbaro V, Ponzin D, Sorrentino FS, Parmeggiani F. Retinitis Pigmentosa: Genes and Disease Mechanisms. Current Genomics. 122011. p. 238–49.

15. Hamel C. Retinitis pigmentosa. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. 2006;1:40. Epub 2006/10/13. doi: 10.1186/1750-1172-1-40 17032466; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1621055.

16. Yanagisawa M, Kato S, Kobayashi M, Watanabe M, Ochiai M. Relationship between vision-related quality of life and different types of existing visual fields in Japanese patients. International Ophthalmology. 2012;32(6):523–9. Epub 2012/05/15. doi: 10.1007/s10792-012-9581-x 22581307.

17. Latham K, Baranian M, Timmis MA, Fisher A, Pardhan S. Relative Difficulties of Daily Living Tasks with Retinitis Pigmentosa. Optometry and Vision Science. 2017;94(3):317–28. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001046 28033161

18. Black A, Lovie‐Kitchin JE, Woods RL, Arnold N, Byrnes J, Murrish J. Mobility performance with retinitis pigmentosa. Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 1997;80(1):1–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.1997.tb04841.x

19. Lorenzana L, Lankaranian D, Dugar J, Mayer J, Palejwala N, Kulkarni K, et al. A new method of assessing ability to perform activities of daily living: design, methods and baseline data. Ophthalmic Epidemiology. 2009;16(2):107–14. doi: 10.1080/09286580902738142 19353399

20. Warrian KJ, Katz LJ, Myers JS, Moster MR, Pro MJ, Wizov SS, et al. A comparison of methods used to evaluate mobility performance in the visually impaired. British Journal of Ophthamology. 2015;99:113–8. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305324 25138757

21. Maidenbaum S, Abboud S, Amedi A. Sensory substitution: closing the gap between basic research and widespread practical visual rehabilitation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews. 2014;41:3–15. Epub 2013/11/28. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.11.007 24275274.

22. Kristjánsson Á, Moldoveanu A, Jóhannesson Ó I, Balan O, Spagnol S, Valgeirsdóttir VV, et al. Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. 2016;34(5):769–87. doi: 10.3233/RNN-160647 27567755.

23. Whitmarsh LE. The Benefits of Guide Dog Ownership. Visual Impairment Research. 2005;7(1):27–42. doi: 10.1080/13882350590956439

24. National Federation of the Blind. Blindness Statistics 2017 [17th November 2017]. Available from: https://nfb.org/blindness-statistics.

25. Maidenbaum S, Hanassy S, Abboud S, Buchs G, Chebat DR, Levy-Tzedek S, et al. The "EyeCane", a new electronic travel aid for the blind: Technology, behavior & swift learning. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. 2014;32(6):813–24. Epub 2014/09/10. doi: 10.3233/RNN-130351 25201814.

26. Pavey S, Dodgson A, Douglas G, Clements B. Travel, transport and mobility of people who are bind and partially sighted in the UK. University of Birmingham: Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), 2009.

27. Nguyen C. Haptic Obstacle Detector for the Blind. Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet; 2014.

28. von Haller Gilmer B. Problems in Cutaneous Communication from Psychophysics to Information Processing. New York: American Foundation for the Blind; 1966. 40 p.

29. Spence C. The skin as a medium for sensory substitution. Multisensory Research. 2014;27(5–6):293–312. Epub 2015/02/20. 25693298.

30. Bhatlawande S, Sunkari A, Mahadevappa M, Mukhopadhyay J, Biswas M, Das D, et al. Electronic bracelet and vision-enabled waist-belt for mobility of visually impaired people. Assistive Technology. 2014;26(4):186–95. Epub 2014/01/01. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2014.915896 25771603.

31. Bach-y-Rita P, Kaczmarek KA, Tyler ME, Garcia-Lara J. Form perception with a 49-point electrotactile stimulus array on the tongue: a technical note. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. 1998;35(4):427–30. Epub 1999/04/29. 10220221.

32. Adebiyi A, Sorrentino P, Bohlool S, Zhang C, Arditti M, Goodrich G, et al. Assessment of feedback modalities for wearable visual aids in blind mobility. PLoS One. 2017;12(2). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170531 28182731

33. Saito DN, Okada T, Honda M, Yonekura Y, Sadato N. Practice makes perfect: the neural substrates of tactile discrimination by Mah-Jong experts include the primary visual cortex. BMC Neuroscience. 2006;7:79. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-7-79 17144928.

34. Khampachua C, Wongrajit C, Waranusast R, Pattanathaburt P. Wrist-mounted smartphone-based navigation device for visually impaired people using ultrasonic sensing—IEEE Conference Publication. 2016 Fifth ICT International Student Project Conference (ICT-ISPC); Thailand: IEEE; 2016.

35. Shoval S, Borenstein J, Koren Y. The NavBelt—a computerized travel aid for the blind based on mobile robotics technology. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1998;45(11):1376–86. Epub 1998/11/07. doi: 10.1109/10.725334 9805836.

36. Cardin S, Thalmann D, Vexo F. A wearable system for mobility improvement of visually impaired people. The Visual Computer. 2007;23(2):109–18. doi: 10.1007/s00371-006-0032-4

37. Johnson LA, Higgins CM. A Navigation Aid for the Blind Using Tactile-Visual Sensory Substitution. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS) Annual International Conference of the IEEE; New York, USA: IEEE; 2006.

38. Bahadir SK, Koncar V, Kalaoglu F. Wearable obstacle detection system fully integrated to textile structures for visually impaired people. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical. 2012;179(Supplement C):297–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2012.02.027.

39. Dakopoulos D, Boddhu SK, Bourbakis NG. A 2D Vibration Array as an Assistive Device for Visually Impaired. Bioinformatics and Bioengineering IEEE International Conference; Boston, USA: IEEE; 2007.

40. Chebat DR, Maidenbaum S, Amedi A. Navigation using sensory substitution in real and virtual mazes. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0126307. Epub 2015/06/04. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126307 26039580; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4454637.

41. Chung DC, McCague S, Yu ZF, Thill S, DiStefano‐Pappas J, Bennett J, et al. Novel mobility test to assess functional vision in patients with inherited retinal dystrophies. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. 2017. doi: 10.1111/ceo.13022 28697537

42. Dhital A, Pey T, Stanford MR. Visual loss and falls: a review. Eye. 2010;24(9):1437–46. Epub 2010/05/08. doi: 10.1038/eye.2010.60 20448666.

43. Dersu I, Wiggins MN, Luther A, Harper R, Chacko J. Understanding Visual Fields, Part I: Goldmann Perimetry. Journal of Ophthalmic Medical Technology. 2006;2(2).