Perspective on Vision: The Visual System as a Black Box.

Vision is a complex phenomenon that can be addressed from different points of view. Input to the visual system consists of visual stimuli, the final output is visually guided behavior, while visual perceptions are an intermediate product. Clinicians often start by considering the input-related aspects that can be addressed by medical and surgical means. Patients, on the other hand, may be most concerned about the output aspects, that is, the effect on their daily activities. The relations between these 2 points of view are often misunderstood, which may lead to miscommunication. This perspective-based on more than 4 decades devoted to vision rehabilitation-aims at exploring these differences to bridge the communications gap. Seemingly similar tests may actually assess different aspects. One example is the relationship between letter chart acuity and reading ability, as demonstrated by the difference between Jaeger's and Snellen's tests. Clinical applications require assessment of individuals. Societal applications deal with groups of people; they include research, public health statistics, and eligibility rules for privileges or benefits. Such applications often rely on the application of formulas to input measurements to estimate the consequences on the output side. The implications of such simplifications should be understood.

Harmonization of Outcomes and Vision Endpoints in Vision Restoration Trials: Recommendations from the International HOVER Taskforce.

Translational research in vision prosthetics, gene therapy, optogenetics, stem cell and other forms of transplantation, and sensory substitution is creating new therapeutic options for patients with neural forms of blindness. The technical challenges faced by each of these disciplines differ considerably, but they all face the same challenge of how to assess vision in patients with ultra-low vision (ULV), who will be the earliest subjects to receive new therapies. Historically, there were few tests to assess vision in ULV patients. In the 1990s, the field of visual prosthetics expanded rapidly, and this activity led to a heightened need to develop better tests to quantify end points for clinical studies. Each group tended to develop novel tests, which made it difficult to compare outcomes across groups. The common lack of validation of the tests and the variable use of controls added to the challenge of interpreting the outcomes of these clinical studies. In 2014, at the bi-annual International "Eye and the Chip" meeting of experts in the field of visual prosthetics, a group of interested leaders agreed to work cooperatively to develop the International Harmonization of Outcomes and Vision Endpoints in Vision Restoration Trials (HOVER) Taskforce. Under this banner, more than 80 specialists across seven topic areas joined an effort to formulate guidelines for performing and reporting psychophysical tests in humans who participate in clinical trials for visual restoration. This document provides the complete version of the consensus opinions from the HOVER taskforce, which, together with its rules of governance, will be posted on the website of the Henry Ford Department of Ophthalmology (www.artificialvision.org). Research groups or companies that choose to follow these guidelines are encouraged to include a specific statement to that effect in their communications to the public. The Executive Committee of the HOVER Taskforce will maintain a list of all human psychophysical research in the relevant fields of research on the same website to provide an overview of methods and outcomes of all clinical work being performed in an attempt to restore vision to the blind. This website will also specify which scientific publications contain the statement of certification. The website will be updated every 2 years and continue to exist as a living document of worldwide efforts to restore vision to the blind. The HOVER consensus document has been written by over 80 of the world's experts in vision restoration and low vision and provides recommendations on the measurement and reporting of patient outcomes in vision restoration trials.

Vision Rehabilitation is Part of AMD Care.

AMD does not just affect the retina. It severely affects people's lives. Paying attention to this aspect will only become more important as the population ages and more otherwise healthy individuals become affected. This paper will discuss the need for teamwork to overcome the difference between medical care, which addresses the causes of AMD, and rehabilitative care, which addresses the consequences. Different aspects and different degrees of vision loss ask for different interventions. Loss of detailed vision can be addressed by a wide variety of magnification devices. The means to address this aspect are well recognized. Surround vision is largely processed pre-attentively. Its loss cannot be remediated by devices, but must be addressed through patient education to bring previously subconscious reactions to conscious awareness. Loss of contrast vision is an aspect that is not sufficiently studied. It is important for early detection, and for the safety of the patient. When the eye condition cannot be modified, environmental modifications provide the most effective remediation.

A conceptual model for vision rehabilitation.

Vision impairments are highly prevalent after acquired brain injury (ABI). Conceptual models that focus on constructing intellectual frameworks greatly facilitate comprehension and implementation of practice guidelines in an interprofessional setting. The purpose of this article is to provide a review of the vision literature in ABI, describe a conceptual model for vision rehabilitation, explain its potential clinical inferences, and discuss its translation into rehabilitation across multiple practice settings and disciplines.

Assessment of functional vision and its rehabilitation.

This article, based on a report prepared for the International Council of Ophthalmology (ICO) and the International Society for Low Vision Research and Rehabilitation (ISLRR), explores the assessment of various aspects of visual functioning as needed to document the outcomes of vision rehabilitation. Documenting patient abilities and functional vision (how the person functions) is distinct from the measurement of visual functions (how the eye functions) and also from the assessment of quality of life. All three areas are important, but their assessment should not be mixed. Observation of task performance offers the most objective measure of functional vision, but it is time-consuming and not feasible for many tasks. Where possible, timing and error rates provide an easy score. Patient response questionnaires provide an alternative. They may save time and can cover a wider area, but the responses are subjective and proper scoring presents problems. Simple Likert scoring still predominates but Rasch analysis, needed to provide better result scales, is gaining ground. Selection of questions is another problem. If the range of difficulties does not match the range of patient abilities, and if the difficulties are not distributed evenly, the results are not optimal. This may be an argument to use different outcome questions for different conditions. Generic questionnaires are appropriate for the assessment of generic quality of life, but not for specific rehabilitation outcomes. Different questionnaires are also needed for screening, intake and outcomes. Intake questions must be relevant to actual needs to allow prioritization of rehabilitation goals; the activity inventory presents a prototype. Outcome questions should be targeted at predefined rehabilitation goals. The Appendix cites some promising examples. The Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT) is an example of a properly designed randomized control study, and has demonstrated the remarkable effectiveness of vision rehabilitation. It is hoped that further similar studies will follow.