Francisco M Costela1,2, Stephanie M Reeves1, Russell L Woods1,2. 1. Schepens Eye Research Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: People with central vision loss (CVL) watch television, videos and movies, but often report difficulty and have reduced video comprehension. An approach to assist viewing videos is electronic magnification of the video itself, such as Bubble Magnification. METHODS: We created a Bubble Magnification technique that displayed a magnified segment around the centre of interest (COI) as determined by the gaze of participants with normal vision. The 15 participants with CVL viewed video clips shown with 2× and 3× Bubble Magnification, and unedited. We measured video comprehension and gaze coherence. RESULTS: Video comprehension was significantly worse with both 2× (p = 0.01) and 3× Bubble Magnification (p < 0.001) than the unedited video. There was no difference in gaze coherence across conditions (p ≥ 0.58). This was unexpected because we expected a benefit in both video comprehension and gaze coherence. This initial attempt to implement the Bubble Magnification method had flaws that probably reduced its effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In the future, we propose alternative implementations of Bubble Magnification, such as variable magnification and bubble size. This study is a first step in the development of an intelligent-magnification approach to providing a vision rehabilitation aid to assist people with CVL.
PURPOSE: People with central vision loss (CVL) watch television, videos and movies, but often report difficulty and have reduced video comprehension. An approach to assist viewing videos is electronic magnification of the video itself, such as Bubble Magnification. METHODS: We created a Bubble Magnification technique that displayed a magnified segment around the centre of interest (COI) as determined by the gaze of participants with normal vision. The 15 participants with CVL viewed video clips shown with 2× and 3× Bubble Magnification, and unedited. We measured video comprehension and gaze coherence. RESULTS: Video comprehension was significantly worse with both 2× (p = 0.01) and 3× Bubble Magnification (p < 0.001) than the unedited video. There was no difference in gaze coherence across conditions (p ≥ 0.58). This was unexpected because we expected a benefit in both video comprehension and gaze coherence. This initial attempt to implement the Bubble Magnification method had flaws that probably reduced its effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In the future, we propose alternative implementations of Bubble Magnification, such as variable magnification and bubble size. This study is a first step in the development of an intelligent-magnification approach to providing a vision rehabilitation aid to assist people with CVL.
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
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