Augmented-view for restricted visual field: multiple device implementations.

Fernando Vargas-Martín; Eli Peli

doi:10.1097/00006324-200211000-00009

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12462540

Augmented-view for restricted visual field: multiple device implementations.

Fernando Vargas-Martín·Eli Peli

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE: An augmented-view device for patients with severely restricted peripheral visual fields (tunnel vision) was proposed, combining a see-through head-mounted display and a simultaneous minified view of a wide field presented as contour information. Here we create and evaluate multiple implementations of the augmented-view concept and report responses from potential users. METHODS: Several prototypes using commercial off-the-shelf devices were implemented. Then they were evaluated in real environments in daylight and at night by two retinitis pigmentosa patients. RESULTS: Effective expansion of the visual field of patients was achieved. Patients indicated their preferences for different properties, devices, and combinations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients found the augmented-view concept of help for their impairment, but wanted much more ergonomic design than the prototypes provided. Benefits, limitations, and possible improvements for the evaluated devices are discussed.

Explore related subjects

Equipment Design Equipment and Supplies Humans Photography Retinitis Pigmentosa Vision Disorders Visual Fields Journal Article Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Fernando Vargas-Martín, Eli Peli. 2002. Augmented-view for restricted visual field: multiple device implementations.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200211000-00009

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Sitting comfort and discomfort and the relationships with objective measures.

The concepts of comfort and discomfort in sitting are under debate. There is no widely accepted definition, although it is beyond dispute that comfort and discomfort are feelings or emotions that are subjective in nature. Yet, beside several subjective methodologies, several objective methods (e.g. posture analysis, pressure measurements, electromyography (EMG) are in use to assess sitting comfort or discomfort. In the current paper a theoretical framework is presented, in which comfort and discomfort were defined and the hypothetical associations with underlying factors were indicated. Next, the literature was reviewed to determine the relationships between objective measures and subjective ratings of comfort and discomfort. Twenty-one studies were found in which simultaneous measures of an objective parameter and a subjective rating of comfort or discomfort were obtained. Pressure distribution appears to be the objective measure with the most clear association with the subjective ratings. For other variables, regarding spinal profile or muscle activity for instance, the reported associations are less clear and usually not statistically significant.

Equipment Design↗

PubMed2003

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation delivered by helmet vs. standard face mask.

OBJECTIVE: This bench and human study compared large and small helmets with face mask (FM) for delivery of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation. DESIGN: A lung simulator was employed, and the human study involved six healthy subjects. We evaluated a continuous high-flow (CPAPHF), low flow (CPAPLF), ventilator (CPAPVENT) CPAP, and pressure support ventilation (PSV 10 and 20 cmH2O). In the human study we used CPAPHF, CPAPVENT, and PSV 5 cmH2O. PEEP was 5 cmH2O. MEASUREMENTS: In the bench study during CPAP we measured the negative airway pressure time product (areaCPAP), i.e., the area of airway pressure (Paw) under PEEP and during PSV the pressure airway time product (areaPSV), i.e., the area of Paw from onset to end of inspiratory flow. In the human study we measured the breathing pattern and work of breathing (WOB). RESULTS: In the bench study during CPAPLF the helmets had a lower areaCPAP than the FM, while during CPAPHF the three interfaces had similar areaCPAP. Using CPAPVENT and PSV the FM reduced areaCPAP and increased areaPSV compared to helmets. At 20 cmH2O of PSV using helmets areaPSV was similar to that obtained at 10 cmH2O of PSV using the FM. In human study using CPAPHF and CPAPVENT the tree interfaces had similar effects on breathing pattern and WOB, while using PSV the FM reduced WOB more than helmets. CONCLUSIONS: During CPAPLF helmets were more efficient than FM, while during CPAPHF the three interfaces were comparable. Using CPAPVENT and PSV, FM was more efficient than helmets

Equipment Design↗

PubMed2003

[Suction-irrigator device for microsurgery: technical note].

A modification of the conventional suction device for microsurgery is described. It consists of a built-in tube in another tube, being the first connected to the suction device and the second to the irrigation. This suction-irrigator device allows to accomplish the suction and irrigation simultaneously and in a precise way.

Equipment Design↗