Efficacy and Patients' Satisfaction with the ORCAM MyEye Device Among Visually Impaired People: A Multicenter Study.

To evaluate usability of and satisfaction with OrCam MyEye, a finger-size wearable assistive technology device for visually impaired during real-world tasks. This prospective multicenter study was conducted on visually impaired people recruited from 5 vision rehabilitation centers. Patients performed real-world tasks such as near and distance reading, money handling, colour identification and face recognition in 2 different scenarios: without using any low vision aid and with OrCam. System Usability Scale (SUS), Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC), the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) and the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) were administered after the use of the OrCam device. Among the 100 participants, use of OrCam MyEye device improved many daily-living tasks (F = 1.67, P < .05), and in particular reading and face recognition. Multivariate logistic regression showed that age and visual field defect explained 89% of the variation in efficacy of the device. Nearly half (45%) of the participants indicated a positive rating with the SUS. The PGIC rates showed a minimal improvement with a mean score of 4.2 (SD:1.8). The most highlighted parameter with the QUEST 2.0 test was "ease of use" in 58% (48 subjects). The PIADS indicator showed that the device positively impacted on the daily-living tasks of users (r2 = 0.72, P < .05). Regression modelling demonstrated a good relation between the questionnaires scores and demographic, disease and visual factors (P < .05). OrCam MyEye allowed visually impaired people to read, handle money and face recognition independently. This device may offer to these subjects to be independent.

Posturographic Analysis in Patients Affected by Central and Peripheral Visual Impairment.

Although vision loss is known to affect equilibrium maintenance, postural control in patients affected by low vision has been poorly investigated. We evaluated postural stability and the ability to use visual, proprioceptive and vestibular information in different low vision patterns. Ten adults with normal vision (NC), fourteen adults affected by central visual impairment (CLV) and eight adults affected by peripheral visual impairment (PLV) were enrolled in our study. Patients underwent visual, vestibular and postural evaluation (bedside examination, Computed Dynamic Posturograophy). Motor Control Tests were performed to analyze automatic postural adaptive responses elicited by unexpected postural disturbances. Clinical evaluations did not show abnormality in all patients. In the Sensory Organization Test, CLV and PLV patients performed more poorly in conditions 3-6 and 3-4, as compared to NC subjects. The condition 5 score was significantly lower in the CLV group with respect to the PLV patients. Composite equilibrium scores demonstrated significant differences between low-vision subjects vs. NC subjects. No differences were found for somatosensorial contribution. Visual afferences showed lower values in all visually impaired subjects, while vestibular contribution was lower in the CLV patients as compared to the NC and PLV patients. MCT latencies were significantly worse in the CLV subjects. In the low-vision patients, postural control was modified with a specific pattern of strategy adaptation. Different modulations of postural control and different adaptive responses seemed to characterize CLV patients as compared to PLV subjects.

Biofeedback stimulation in the visually impaired: a systematic review of literature.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that approximately 1.3 billion people live with some form of distance or near visual impairment. Numerous studies have been carried out to evaluate the effects of biofeedback (BF) and establish if it could be a useful tool in vision rehabilitation for various eye diseases. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed: 1) to examine the current evidence of BF efficacy for the rehabilitation of the visually impaired and 2) to describe methodological variations used in previous BF studies to provide recommendations for vision rehabilitation interventions. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in the Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases to collect documents published between January 2000 and May 2020. Of the 1,960 studies identified, 43 met the criteria for inclusion. The following information was collected from each study: sample size, control group, any eye disease, apparatus used, frequency and number of sessions of BF, main outcomes of training and whether a follow-up was conducted. The first group included studies published as scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. The second group included abstracts of studies presented at peer-reviewed conferences. Publications were also grouped according to the eye disease treated. RESULTS: 25 articles and 18 peer-reviewed conference abstracts (PRCAs) were included in this review. BF stimulation is a commonly used technique for the treatment of visual impairment caused by macular disease. Most BF studies evaluate the effect of training on the preferred retinal locus (PRL), particularly with regard to fixation location and stability. Across these studies, participants who received BF intervention improved fixation stability and reading speed. High variability in the number of sessions and the duration of BF training was found. Most studies did not use a control group. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review present evidence for biofeedback treatment in vision rehabilitation, with improved oculomotor abilities. Currently, it is not possible to formulate evidence-based recommendations for a standard training procedure due to the poor quality of existing randomised controlled trials. High-quality studies are needed to develop standard protocols for a range of eye diseases.