Benefits of electronic vision enhancement systems (EVES) for the visually impaired.

PURPOSE To examine whether objective performance of near tasks is improved with various electronic vision enhancement systems (EVES) compared with the subject's own optical magnifier. DESIGN Experimental study, randomized, within-patient design. METHODS This was a prospective study, conducted in a hospital ophthalmology low-vision clinic. The patient population comprised 70 sequential visually impaired subjects. The magnifying devices examined were: patient's optimum optical magnifier; magnification and field-of-view matched mouse EVES with monitor or head-mounted display (HMD) viewing; and stand EVES with monitor viewing. The tasks performed were: reading speed and acuity; time taken to track from one column of print to the next; follow a route map, and locate a specific feature; and identification of specific information from a medicine label. RESULTS Mouse EVES with HMD viewing caused lower reading speeds than stand EVES with monitor viewing (F = 38.7, P <.001). Reading with the optical magnifier was slower than with the mouse or stand EVES with monitor viewing at smaller print sizes (P <.05). The column location task was faster with the optical magnifier than with any of the EVES (F = 10.3, P <.001). The map tracking and medicine label identification task was slower with the mouse EVES with HMD viewing than with the other magnifiers (P <.01). Previous EVES experience had no effect on task performance (P >.05), but subjects with previous optical magnifier experience were significantly slower at performing the medicine label identification task with all of the EVES (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS Although EVES provide objective benefits to the visually impaired in reading speed and acuity, together with some specific near tasks, some can be performed just as fast using optical magnification.