Standardizing Visual Rehabilitation using Simple Virtual Tests

Many different visual rehabilitation approaches are being utilized to offer visual information to the blind. User proficiency and functional ability are currently evaluated either via ad-hoc tests or via standardized visual tests which are not sensitive enough in the range of extreme low vision. Unfortunately, this is the functional level that these approaches typically offer. This is especially important as the main criteria by which most users will judge the efficacy of these rehabilitation approaches is by the functional benefits it grants them. Furthermore, currently, there are no accepted benchmarks or clear comparative testing of each rehabilitation approach, leading to the development of many new aids but the practical adoption of few. Combined these indicate a need to add standardized functional tests to this evaluation toolbox. Indeed, several functional tests have recently been suggested but their adoption has been very limited. Here, we review current tests and then conduct a formative study consulting experts in the field to map issues with current standardization attempts. This formative study offered a list of practical design suggestions for functional standardization tests. We then suggest using simple virtual environments as one such family of tests. Virtual scenarios meet many of the experts’ suggestions - they are easy to share, flexible, affordable, safe, identical wherever run, can be run by a single operator and offer control over external parameters enabling a focus on the offered visual information. Finally, we demonstrate this approach via a freely available virtual version of a relatively standard functional test - finding a door - in a 10-minute paradigm which includes 30 trials. We find that congenitally-blind and sighted-blindfolded subjects cannot perform this task without the device, but that they perform it successfully with it, demonstrating the tests’ potential viability.

[1]  C. Neuper,et al.  Virtual reality in neurologic rehabilitation of spatial disorientation , 2013, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[2]  Botond Roska,et al.  Restoring vision , 2018, Nature.

[3]  Gislin Dagnelie,et al.  Performance of real‐world functional vision tasks by blind subjects improves after implantation with the Argus® II retinal prosthesis system , 2016, Clinical & experimental ophthalmology.

[4]  August Colenbrander,et al.  Assessment of functional vision and its rehabilitation , 2010, Acta ophthalmologica.

[5]  Shachar Maidenbaum,et al.  Perception of Graphical Virtual Environments by Blind Users via Sensory Substitution , 2016, PloS one.

[6]  J. Deutsch,et al.  Virtual Reality for Stroke Rehabilitation , 2012 .

[7]  David Mioduser,et al.  Exploration of Unknown Spaces by People Who are Blind Using a Multi-Sensory Virtual Environment , 2004 .

[8]  Zachary Reynolds,et al.  Interactive Training for Sensory Substitution Devices , 2009 .

[9]  L L SLOAN,et al.  Measurement of visual acuity; a critical review. , 1951, A.M.A. archives of ophthalmology.

[10]  P. Bach-y-Rita Brain mechanisms in sensory substitution , 1972 .

[11]  Jessy D. Dorn,et al.  The Argus II epiretinal prosthesis system allows letter and word reading and long-term function in patients with profound vision loss , 2013, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[12]  Ron Kupers,et al.  Tactile–‘visual’ acuity of the tongue in early blind individuals , 2007, Neuroreport.

[13]  Shachar Maidenbaum,et al.  Vision through other senses: Practical use of Sensory Substitution devices as assistive technology for visual rehabilitation , 2014, 22nd Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation.

[14]  Earl Hunt,et al.  The Transfer of Spatial Knowledge in Virtual Environment Training , 1998, Presence.

[15]  Jong-Hyeon Jeong,et al.  A standardized obstacle course for assessment of visual function in ultra low vision and artificial vision. , 2014, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE.

[16]  Amir Amedi,et al.  ‘Visual’ Acuity of the Congenitally Blind Using Visual-to-Auditory Sensory Substitution , 2012, PloS one.

[17]  W. Hauswirth,et al.  A comprehensive review of retinal gene therapy. , 2013, Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy.

[18]  G. Burdea Virtual Rehabilitation - Benefits and Challenges , 2003, Yearbook of Medical Informatics.

[19]  Michiel H G Claessen,et al.  A Direct Comparison of Real-World and Virtual Navigation Performance in Chronic Stroke Patients , 2016, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.

[20]  Arthur James Lowery,et al.  Restoration of vision in blind individuals using bionic devices: A review with a focus on cortical visual prostheses , 2015, Brain Research.

[21]  Gislin Dagnelie,et al.  Development of the Ultra-Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (ULV-VFQ) , 2017, Translational vision science & technology.

[22]  Shachar Maidenbaum,et al.  Sensory Substitution and the Neural Correlates of Navigation in Blindness , 2018 .

[23]  Patrice L. Weiss,et al.  Virtual reality for learning and rehabilitation , 2010 .

[24]  Shachar Maidenbaum,et al.  EyeMusic: Introducing a "visual" colorful experience for the blind using auditory sensory substitution. , 2014, Restorative neurology and neuroscience.

[25]  Marianna Obrist,et al.  "I Always Wanted to See the Night Sky": Blind User Preferences for Sensory Substitution Devices , 2016, CHI.

[26]  Shachar Maidenbaum,et al.  A number-form area in the blind , 2015, Nature Communications.

[27]  Charles B. Owen,et al.  Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays , 2016, Virtual Reality.

[28]  Thomas W Raasch,et al.  Development of a Battery of Functional Tests for Low Vision , 2009, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[29]  Gislin Dagnelie,et al.  Psychophysical evaluation for visual prosthesis. , 2008, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[30]  P. Greenberg,et al.  Retinal implants: a systematic review , 2014, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[31]  Joseph F. Rizzo,et al.  Psychophysical testing of visual prosthetic devices: a call to establish a multi-national joint task force , 2014, Journal of neural engineering.

[32]  Jessy D. Dorn,et al.  FLORA™: Phase I development of a functional vision assessment for prosthetic vision users , 2015, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[33]  Shachar Maidenbaum,et al.  The "EyeCane", a new electronic travel aid for the blind: Technology, behavior & swift learning. , 2014, Restorative neurology and neuroscience.

[34]  Jaime Sánchez,et al.  Teaching the Blind to Find Their Way by Playing Video Games , 2012, PloS one.

[35]  Shachar Maidenbaum,et al.  The transfer of non-visual spatial knowledge between real and virtual mazes via sensory substitution , 2017, 2017 International Conference on Virtual Rehabilitation (ICVR).

[36]  P. Troyk,et al.  Responses of potential users to the intracortical visual prosthesis: final themes from the analysis of focus group data , 2012, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[37]  Shachar Maidenbaum,et al.  Author's Personal Copy Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Sensory Substitution: Closing the Gap between Basic Research and Widespread Practical Visual Rehabilitation Author's Personal Copy , 2022 .

[38]  Christoph Kniestedt,et al.  Visual acuity and its measurement. , 2003, Ophthalmology clinics of North America.