Reading with a head-mounted video magnifier.

PURPOSE: This study compared the effectiveness of a head-mounted video magnifier, low-vision enhancement system (LVES), with closed-circuit TV (CCTV) and large print as a device or means of improving reading performance in people with low vision. METHODS: The reading performance of ten low-vision participants was assessed in two ways: (1) By measuring reading speed as a function of print size with LVES and without LVES, and (2) by comparing reading speed and comprehension of news articles using the LVES vs. a popular non-head-mounted video magnifier, the CCTV. RESULTS: Maximum reading speeds with LVES matched the maximum reading speeds with unaided vision attained by enlarging print. The critical print size (the smallest print size that could be read at maximum reading speed) improved significantly for all participants using LVES compared with unaided vision. When comparing reading performance using LVES and CCTV, we found that reading speed and comprehension for the two conditions were equivalent. The two low-vision participants with lowest acuities (20/640 and 20/960) could not read the 10-point newspaper articles with LVES, even with an 8 D auxiliary reading lens that permitted a very close reading distance. CONCLUSIONS: Head-mounted video magnifiers, such as LVES, can support good low-vision reading performance, but the restricted range of magnification may limit the usefulness of the device as a reading magnifier for people with very low acuity.

Motion parallax: effects of blur, contrast, and field size in normal and low vision.

Can people with different forms of low vision use motion parallax to improve depth judgments? We used a staircase method to compare depth thresholds using motion parallax and static viewing. We tested eighteen normal-vision subjects with a range of simulated deficits in acuity, contrast sensitivity, and simulated peripheral-field loss, and ten low-vision subjects with a wide range of acuity, contrast sensitivity, and field loss. Subjects viewed three vertical cylinders monocularly and indicated which one was at a different depth from the other two. For motion-parallax trials, observers moved their heads (in a viewing assembly on rollers) from side to side over a range of 6-12 cm. For static trials, the viewing assembly was fixed in place. Normal-vision subjects' depth thresholds with motion parallax were significantly smaller than those with static viewing by an average factor of 1.95 (p < 0.05) across all levels of acuity and contrast. For low-vision observers, the depth thresholds exhibited large individual differences; however, the motion-parallax thresholds were smaller than the static thresholds by an average factor of 2.05 (p < 0.01). These findings indicate that motion parallax can provide useful depth information for people with low vision.