Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 7478625

Using visual thresholds to establish low vision performance.

Abstract

Table 6 gives an example of a similar task (N10 print of 75% contrast) but with different requirements of fluency showing how much extra visual performance (acuity threshold, contrast threshold and magnification) is needed to achieve fluent reading. After the clinical assessment of visual function, it should be possible to categorize clients into three different groups on the basis of their threshold visual performance, each needing a different approach depending on their goals and needs as shown in Table 7. These are: Group I: Limited or no survival reading potential. Group II: Survival reading potential but limited likelihood of fluency. Group III: Clear survival reading potential with fluent reading possible if motivated. The author believes that it is always best to start with what the client has to read in order to maintain their independence, rather than what they wish to read for leisure, education or employment. Therefore, it is more successful to concentrate initially on spot/survival reading even if the client seems to have potential for regaining fluency. It should, however, be made clear to the client that this is the approach to be adopted. It is futile for the practitioner, as well as frustrating and demoralizing to the client, to press ahead with complex devices or wasteful trial and error sessions if, at an early stage, it is clear that the client will never return to fluent reading. Instead, it is far better to begin the move to vision substitution (e.g. audio-tapes) for leisure reading at an earlier stage. The overriding influence in low vision management is clearly the motivation of the client.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

N J Rumney. 1995. Using visual thresholds to establish low vision performance.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7478625/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Monocular transparency and unpaired stereopsis.

Howard and Duke [Howard, I. P. & Duke, P. A. (2003). Monocular transparency generates quantitative depth. Vision Research, 43, 2615-2621] recently proposed a new source of binocular information they claim is used to recover depth in stereoscopic displays. They argued that these displays lack conventional disparity and that the metrical depth experienced results from transparency rather than occlusion relations. Using a variety of modified versions of their stimuli, we show here that the conditions for transparency are not required to elicit the depth experienced in their stereograms. We demonstrate that quantitative and precise depth depended not on the presence of transparency but horizontal contours of the same contrast polarity. Depth was attenuated, particularly at larger target offsets, when horizontal contours had opposite contrast polarity for at least a portion of their length. We also show that a demonstration they used to control for the role of horizontal contours can be understood with previously identified mechanisms involved in the computations associated with stereoscopic occlusion. These results imply that the findings reported by Howard and Duke can be understood with mechanisms responsible for the computation of binocular disparity and stereoscopic occlusion.

Contrast Sensitivity↗

Non-monotonic changes in performance with eccentricity modeled by multiple eccentricity-dependent limitations.

Eccentricity-dependent resolution losses are sometimes compensated for in psychophysical experiments by magnifying (scaling) stimuli at each eccentricity. The use of either pre-selected scaling factors or unscaled stimuli sometimes leads to non-monotonic changes in performance as a function of eccentricity. We argue that such non-monotonic changes arise when performance is limited by more than one type of constraint at each eccentricity. Building on current methods developed to investigate peripheral perception [e.g., Watson, A. B. (1987). Estimation of local spatial scale. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 4 (8), 1579-1582; Poirier, F. J. A. M., & Gurnsey, R. (2002). Two eccentricity dependent limitations on subjective contour discrimination. Vision Research, 42, 227-238; Strasburger, H., Rentschler, I., & Harvey Jr., L. O. (1994). Cortical magnification theory fails to predict visual recognition. European Journal of Neuroscience, 6, 1583-1588], we show how measured scaling can deviate from a linear function of eccentricity in a grating acuity task [Thibos, L. N., Still, D. L., & Bradley, A. (1996). Characterization of spatial aliasing and contrast sensitivity in peripheral vision. Vision Research, 36(2), 249-258]. This framework can also explain the central performance drop [Kehrer, L. (1989). Central performance drop on perceptual segregation tasks. Spatial Vision, 4, 45-62] and a case of "reverse scaling" of the integration window in symmetry [Tyler, C. W. (1999). Human symmetry detection exhibits reverse eccentricity scaling. Visual Neuroscience, 16, 919-922]. These cases of non-monotonic performance are shown to be consistent with multiple sources of resolution loss, each of which increases linearly with eccentricity. We conclude that most eccentricity research, including "oddities", can be explained by multiple-scaling theory as extended here, where the receptive field properties of all underlying mechanisms in a task increase in size with eccentricity, but not necessarily at the same rate.

Contrast Sensitivity↗

Coherent motion perception fails at low contrast.

If the Fourier components of a moving plaid have similar temporal frequency, spatial frequency and contrast, coherent motion is perceived according to subjective judgements. We have devised a more objective method of determining the conditions required for coherent motion. Moving plaid stimuli were created with one stationary component. Plaids with a stationary component always have a single perceived direction of motion, which is determined by the presence or absence of coherent motion. In a temporal two-interval forced-choice paradigm we used a direction discrimination task to investigate the effect of varying the temporal and spatial characteristics of the Fourier components and pattern contrast on the probability of coherent motion perception. Agreement across observers regarding the conditions required for coherent motion was excellent using this more objective method. We find that patterns do not produce coherent motion when presented at contrast threshold, irrespective of how similar the Fourier components are. We also confirm that when the temporal frequency, spatial frequency and contrast of the gratings are sufficiently similar, observers report the direction of motion indicating coherent motion.

Contrast Sensitivity↗