Literature DB >> 22863793

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

Premnandhini Satgunam1, Russell L Woods, Gang Luo, P Matthew Bronstad, Zachary Reynolds, Chaithanya Ramachandra, Bartlett W Mel, Eli Peli.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether image enhancement improves visual search performance and whether enhanced images were also preferred by subjects with vision impairment.
METHODS: Subjects (n = 24) with vision impairment (vision: 20/52 to 20/240) completed visual search and preference tasks for 150 static images that were enhanced to increase object contours' visual saliency. Subjects were divided into two groups and were shown three enhancement levels. Original and medium enhancements were shown to both groups. High enhancement was shown to group 1, and low enhancement was shown to group 2. For search, subjects pointed to an object that matched a search target displayed at the top left of the screen. An "integrated search performance" measure (area under the curve of cumulative correct response rate over search time) quantified performance. For preference, subjects indicated the preferred side when viewing the same image with different enhancement levels on side-by-side high-definition televisions.
RESULTS: Contour enhancement did not improve performance in the visual search task. Group 1 subjects significantly (p < 0.001) rejected the High enhancement, and showed no preference for medium enhancement over the original images. Group 2 subjects significantly preferred (p < 0.001) both the medium and the low enhancement levels over original. Contrast sensitivity was correlated with both preference and performance; subjects with worse contrast sensitivity performed worse in the search task (ρ = 0.77, p < 0.001) and preferred more enhancement (ρ = -0.47, p = 0.02). No correlation between visual search performance and enhancement preference was found. However, a small group of subjects (n = 6) in a narrow range of mid-contrast sensitivity performed better with the enhancement, and most (n = 5) also preferred the enhancement.
CONCLUSIONS: Preferences for image enhancement can be dissociated from search performance in people with vision impairment. Further investigations are needed to study the relationships between preference and performance for a narrow range of mid-contrast sensitivity where a beneficial effect of enhancement may exist.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22863793      PMCID: PMC3429700          DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318266f92f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Optom Vis Sci        ISSN: 1040-5488            Impact factor:   1.973


  30 in total

1.  Neural adjustments to image blur.

Authors:  Michael A Webster; Mark A Georgeson; Shernaaz M Webster
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Image enhancement improves reading performance in age-related macular degeneration patients.

Authors:  T A Lawton; J Sebag; A A Sadun; K R Castleman
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

4.  Post Transmission Digital Video Enhancement for People with Visual Impairments.

Authors:  Matthew Fullerton; Eli Peli
Journal:  J Soc Inf Disp       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 2.140

5.  Reliability of visual performance measurement under optical degradation.

Authors:  R L Woods
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  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

7.  Gaze-contingent simulation of retinopathy: some potential pitfalls and remedies.

Authors:  Carlos Aguilar; Eric Castet
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-02-16       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  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

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
  13 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.  Comparing object recognition from binary and bipolar edge features.

Authors:  Jae-Hyun Jung; Tian Pu; Eli Peli
Journal:  IS&T Int Symp Electron Imaging       Date:  2016-02-14

3.  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

Review 4.  Applications of augmented reality in ophthalmology [Invited].

Authors:  Güneş Aydındoğan; Koray Kavaklı; Afsun Şahin; Pablo Artal; Hakan Ürey
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2020-12-21       Impact factor: 3.732

5.  AR4VI: AR as an Accessibility Tool for People with Visual Impairments.

Authors:  James M Coughlan; Joshua Miele
Journal:  Int Symp Mix Augment Real       Date:  2017-10-30

6.  Does Central Vision Loss Impair Visual Search Performance of Adults More than Children?

Authors:  PremNandhini Satgunam; Gang Luo
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.973

7.  Comparing object recognition from binary and bipolar edge images for visual prostheses.

Authors:  Jae-Hyun Jung; Tian Pu; Eli Peli
Journal:  J Electron Imaging       Date:  2016-12-22       Impact factor: 0.945

8.  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

9.  An augmented-reality edge enhancement application for Google Glass.

Authors:  Alex D Hwang; Eli Peli
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.973

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.