Joshua R Ehrlich1, Lauro V Ojeda2, Donna Wicker3, Sherry Day3, Ashley Howson3, Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan4, Sayoko E Moroi5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Center for Eye Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada; Department of Physics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada; Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. 5. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: smoroi@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the various types of head-mounted display technology, their optical and human-factors considerations, and their potential for use in low-vision rehabilitation and vision enhancement. DESIGN: Expert perspective. METHODS: An overview of head-mounted display technology by an interdisciplinary team of experts drawing on key literature in the field. RESULTS: Head-mounted display technologies can be classified based on their display type and optical design. See-through displays such as retinal projection devices have the greatest potential for use as low-vision aids. Devices vary by their relationship to the user's eyes, field of view, illumination, resolution, color, stereopsis, effect on head motion, and user interface. These optical and human-factors considerations are important when selecting head-mounted displays for specific applications and patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Head-mounted display technologies may offer advantages over conventional low-vision aids. Future research should compare head-mounted displays with commonly prescribed low-vision aids to compare their effectiveness in addressing the impairments and rehabilitation goals of diverse patient populations.
PURPOSE: To describe the various types of head-mounted display technology, their optical and human-factors considerations, and their potential for use in low-vision rehabilitation and vision enhancement. DESIGN: Expert perspective. METHODS: An overview of head-mounted display technology by an interdisciplinary team of experts drawing on key literature in the field. RESULTS: Head-mounted display technologies can be classified based on their display type and optical design. See-through displays such as retinal projection devices have the greatest potential for use as low-vision aids. Devices vary by their relationship to the user's eyes, field of view, illumination, resolution, color, stereopsis, effect on head motion, and user interface. These optical and human-factors considerations are important when selecting head-mounted displays for specific applications and patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Head-mounted display technologies may offer advantages over conventional low-vision aids. Future research should compare head-mounted displays with commonly prescribed low-vision aids to compare their effectiveness in addressing the impairments and rehabilitation goals of diverse patient populations.
Authors: Matthew G J Trese; Naheed W Khan; Kari Branham; Erin Brown Conroy; Sayoko E Moroi Journal: Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 1.300
Authors: Barry W Rovner; Robin J Casten; Mark T Hegel; Robert W Massof; Benjamin E Leiby; Allen C Ho; William S Tasman Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Joram J van Rheede; Iain R Wilson; Rose I Qian; Susan M Downes; Christopher Kennard; Stephen L Hicks Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Sayoko E Moroi; David M Reed; David S Sanders; Ahmed Almazroa; Lawrence Kagemann; Neil Shah; Nakul Shekhawat; Julia E Richards Journal: Curr Opin Ophthalmol Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Ahmed M Sayed; Rashed Kashem; Mostafa Abdel-Mottaleb; Vatookarn Roongpoovapatr; Taher K Eleiwa; Mohamed Abdel-Mottaleb; Richard K Parrish; Mohamed Abou Shousha Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Ashley D Deemer; Christopher K Bradley; Nicole C Ross; Danielle M Natale; Rath Itthipanichpong; Frank S Werblin; Robert W Massof Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Ahmed M Sayed; Mostafa Abdel-Mottaleb; Rashed Kashem; Vatookarn Roongpoovapatr; Amr Elsawy; Mohamed Abdel-Mottaleb; Richard K Parrish; Mohamed Abou Shousha Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Walter Wittich; Marie-Céline Lorenzini; Samuel N Markowitz; Michael Tolentino; Scott A Gartner; Judith E Goldstein; Gislin Dagnelie Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 1.973