Literature DB >> 19255610

Digital Enhancement of Television Signals for People with Visual Impairments: Evaluation of a Consumer Product.

Matthew Fullerton1, Eli Peli.   

Abstract

Technology to improve the clarity of video for home theater viewers is available utilizing a low cost enhancement chip (DigiVision DV1000). The impact of such a device on the preference for enhanced video was tested for people with impaired vision and normally sighted viewers. Viewers with impaired vision preferred the enhancement effects more than normally sighted viewers. Preference for enhancement was correlated with loss in contrast sensitivity and visual acuity. Preference increased with increased enhancement settings (designed for those with normal vision) in the group with vision impairments. This suggests that higher enhancement levels may be of even greater benefit, and a similar product could be designed to meet the needs of the large, growing population of elderly television viewers with impaired vision.

Entities:  

Year:  2008        PMID: 19255610      PMCID: PMC2410034          DOI: 10.1889/1.2896328

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Soc Inf Disp        ISSN: 1071-0922            Impact factor:   2.140


  13 in total

1.  Contrast sensitivity function and image discrimination.

Authors:  E Peli
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.129

2.  Recognition performance and perceived quality of video enhanced for the visually impaired.

Authors:  Eli Peli
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Where people look when watching movies: do all viewers look at the same place?

Authors:  Robert B Goldstein; Russell L Woods; Eli Peli
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2006-09-29       Impact factor: 4.589

4.  Image enhancement for the visually impaired. Simulations and experimental results.

Authors:  E Peli; R B Goldstein; G M Young; C L Trempe; S M Buzney
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Evaluation of digital unsharp masking and local contrast stretching as applied to chest radiographs.

Authors:  J Rogowska; K Preston; D Sashin
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 4.538

6.  Enhancement of text for the visually impaired.

Authors:  E M Fine; E Peli
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 2.129

7.  Contrast sensitivity to patch stimuli: effects of spatial bandwidth and temporal presentation.

Authors:  E Peli; L E Arend; G M Young; R B Goldstein
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1993

8.  Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States.

Authors:  Nathan Congdon; Benita O'Colmain; Caroline C W Klaver; Ronald Klein; Beatriz Muñoz; David S Friedman; John Kempen; Hugh R Taylor; Paul Mitchell
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-04

Review 9.  Limitations of image enhancement for the visually impaired.

Authors:  E Peli
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 1.973

10.  Measuring perceived video quality of MPEG enhancement by people with impaired vision.

Authors:  Matthew Fullerton; Russell L Woods; Fuensanta A Vera-Diaz; Eli Peli
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.129

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  High Tech Aids Low Vision: A Review of Image Processing for the Visually Impaired.

Authors:  Howard Moshtael; Tariq Aslam; Ian Underwood; Baljean Dhillon
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 3.283

2.  Factors affecting enhanced video quality preferences.

Authors:  Prem Nandhini Satgunam; Russell L Woods; P Matthew Bronstad; Eli Peli
Journal:  IEEE Trans Image Process       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 10.856

3.  Television, computer and portable display device use by people with central vision impairment.

Authors:  Russell L Woods; Premnandhini Satgunam
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Shape and individual variability of the blur adaptation curve.

Authors:  Fuensanta A Vera-Diaz; Russell L Woods; Eli Peli
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2010-04-24       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  IMAGE ENHANCEMENT FOR IMPAIRED VISION: THE CHALLENGE OF EVALUATION.

Authors:  Eli Peli; Russell L Woods
Journal:  Int J Artif Intell Tools       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.208

6.  Contour enhancement benefits older adults with simulated central field loss.

Authors:  Miyoung Kwon; Chaithanya Ramachandra; Premnandhini Satgunam; Bartlett W Mel; Eli Peli; Bosco S Tjan
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.973

7.  Effects of contour enhancement on low-vision preference and visual search.

Authors:  Premnandhini Satgunam; Russell L Woods; Gang Luo; P Matthew Bronstad; Zachary Reynolds; Chaithanya Ramachandra; Bartlett W Mel; Eli Peli
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.973

8.  An implementation of Bubble Magnification did not improve the video comprehension of individuals with central vision loss.

Authors:  Francisco M Costela; Stephanie M Reeves; Russell L Woods
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2021-03-28       Impact factor: 3.992

9.  The Impact of Field of View on Understanding of a Movie Is Reduced by Magnifying Around the Center of Interest.

Authors:  Francisco M Costela; Russell L Woods
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 3.283

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.