This study compared the reading performance of subjects using a prototype, head-mounted laser display, a closed-circuit television (CCTV), and a prescribed optical reading device. The prototype yielded reading speeds that are comparable to optical devices but slower than a CCTV The brightness and clarity of the laser display have potential for the development of future low vision devices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FeinerS. K. (2002). Augmented reality: A new way of seeing. Scientific American, 286(4), 48–55.
2.
GoodrichG. L., KirbyI, KeswickC., OrosT., WagstaffP., DonaldB., HazanJ., & PetersL. (2000). Training the patient with low vision to read: Does it significantly improve function? In StuenC., ArditiA., HorowitzA., LangM. A., RosenthalB., & SeidmanK. (Eds.), Vision ‘99: Vision rehabilitation: Assessment, intervention and outcomes (pp. 230–236). New York: Swets & Zeitlinger.
3.
KlewenoC. P., SeibelE. J., ViirreE. S., KellyJ. P., & FurnessT. A. (2001). The virtual retinal display as a low-vision computer interface: Pilot study. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 38, 431–441.
4.
MassofR. W. (1994). Low vision enhancement: Vision for the future. Eyecare Technology, 4(1), 32–35.
5.
NorušisM. J. (2002). SPSS 11.0 guide to data analysis.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
PeliE. (2000). Augmented vision for central scotoma and peripheral field loss. In SeidmanK. (Ed.), Vision ‘99: Vision rehabilitation: Assessment, intervention and outcomes (pp. 70–74). New York: Swets & Zeitlinger.
7.
ViirreE., PryorH., NagataS., & FurnessT. A. (1998). The virtual retinal display: A new technology for virtual reality and augmented vision in medicine. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 50, 252–257.
