Literature DB >> 21410501

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

Russell L Woods1, Premnandhini Satgunam.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To survey the viewing experience (e.g. hours watched, difficulty) and viewing metrics (e.g. distance viewed, display size) for television (TV), computers and portable visual display devices for normally-sighted (NS) and visually impaired participants. This information may guide visual rehabilitation.
METHODS: Survey was administered either in person or in a telephone interview on 223 participants of whom 104 had low vision (LV, worse than 6/18, age 22-90 years, 54 males), and 94 were NS (visual acuity 6/9 or better, age 20-86 years, 50 males). Depending on their situation, NS participants answered up to 38 questions and LV participants answered up to a further 10 questions.
RESULTS: Many LV participants reported at least 'some' difficulty watching TV (71/103), reported at least 'often' having difficulty with computer displays (40/76) and extreme difficulty watching videos on handheld devices (11/16). The average daily TV viewing was slightly, but not significantly, higher for the LV participants (3.6 h) than the NS (3.0 h). Only 18% of LV participants used visual aids (all optical) to watch TV. Most LV participants obtained effective magnification from a reduced viewing distance for both TV and computer display. Younger LV participants also used a larger display when compared to older LV participants to obtain increased magnification. About half of the TV viewing time occurred in the absence of a companion for both the LV and the NS participants. The mean number of TVs at home reported by LV participants (2.2) was slightly but not significantly (p = 0.09) higher than NS participants (2.0). LV participants were equally likely to have a computer but were significantly (p = 0.004) less likely to access the internet (73/104) compared to NS participants (82/94). Most LV participants expressed an interest in image enhancing technology for TV viewing (67/104) and for computer use (50/74), if they used a computer.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, both NS and LV participants had comparable video viewing habits. Most LV participants in our sample reported difficulty watching TV, and indicated an interest in assistive technology, such as image enhancement. As our participants reported that at least half their video viewing hours are spent alone and that there is usually more than one TV per household, this suggests that there are opportunities to use image enhancement on the TVs of LV viewers without interfering with the viewing experience of NS viewers.
© 2011 The College of Optometrists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21410501      PMCID: PMC3081664          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00833.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt        ISSN: 0275-5408            Impact factor:   3.117


  22 in total

1.  Distance telescopes: a survey of user success.

Authors:  J B Lowe; M P Rubinstein
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  Generic and customized digital image enhancement filters for the visually impaired.

Authors:  Susan J Leat; Gloria Omoruyi; Andrew Kennedy; Ed Jernigan
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Age, affective experience, and television use.

Authors:  Colin A Depp; David A Schkade; Wesley K Thompson; Dilip V Jeste
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 4.  Visual function assessment questionnaires.

Authors:  R W Massof; G S Rubin
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.048

5.  Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002.

Authors:  Serge Resnikoff; Donatella Pascolini; Daniel Etya'ale; Ivo Kocur; Ramachandra Pararajasegaram; Gopal P Pokharel; Silvio P Mariotti
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2004-12-14       Impact factor: 9.408

6.  Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration in the United States.

Authors:  David S Friedman; Benita J O'Colmain; Beatriz Muñoz; Sandra C Tomany; Cathy McCarty; Paulus T V M de Jong; Barbara Nemesure; Paul Mitchell; John Kempen
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-04

7.  Wideband enhancement of television images for people with visual impairments.

Authors:  Eli Peli; Jeonghoon Kim; Yitzhak Yitzhaky; Robert B Goldstein; Russell L Woods
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.129

8.  Evaluation of non-medical costs associated with visual impairment in four European countries: France, Italy, Germany and the UK.

Authors:  Antoine Lafuma; Antoine Brézin; Stefania Lopatriello; Klaus Hieke; Julia Hutchinson; Viviane Mimaud; Gilles Berdeaux
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

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

Authors:  Matthew Fullerton; Eli Peli
Journal:  J Soc Inf Disp       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.140

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
  11 in total

1.  People with Hemianopia Report Difficulty with TV, Computer, Cinema Use, and Photography.

Authors:  Francisco M Costela; Sarah S Sheldon; Bethany Walker; Russell L Woods
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  Visual search performance of patients with vision impairment: effect of JPEG image enhancement.

Authors:  Gang Luo; PremNandhini Satgunam; Eli Peli
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2012-04-28       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Blur Adaptation to Central Retinal Disease.

Authors:  Fuensanta A Vera-Diaz; Russell L Woods; Eli Peli
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Evaluation of a gaze-controlled vision enhancement system for reading in visually impaired people.

Authors:  Carlos Aguilar; Eric Castet
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Crowdsourcing a normative natural language dataset: a comparison of Amazon Mechanical Turk and in-lab data collection.

Authors:  Daniel R Saunders; Peter J Bex; Russell L Woods
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 5.428

8.  Online Survey of Digital Reading by Adults with Low Vision.

Authors:  Yueh-Hsun Wu; Christina Granquist; Rachel Gage; Michael D Crossland; Gordon E Legge
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 2.106

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

10.  Measuring the Difficulty Watching Video With Hemianopia and an Initial Test of a Rehabilitation Approach.

Authors:  Francisco M Costela; Daniel R Saunders; Sidika Kajtezovic; Dylan J Rose; Russell L Woods
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 3.283

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.