1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Vision Science
  4. Volume 9, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Vision Science

Volume 9, 2023

Impact of Apps as Assistive Devices for Visually Impaired Persons

Abstract

The pervasiveness of mobile devices and other associated technologies has affected all aspects of our daily lives. People with visual impairments are no exception, as they increasingly tend to rely on mobile apps for assistance with various visual tasks in daily life. Compared to dedicated visual aids, mobile apps offer advantages such as affordability, versatility, portability, and ubiquity. We have surveyed hundreds of mobile apps of potential interest to people with vision impairments, either released as special assistive apps claiming to help in tasks such as text or object recognition ( = 68), digital accessibility ( = 84), navigation ( = 44), and remote sighted service ( = 4), among others, or marketed as general camera magnification apps that can be used for visual assistance ( = 77). While assistive apps as a whole received positive feedback from visually impaired users, as reported in various studies, evaluations of the usability of every app were typically limited to user reviews, which are often not scientifically informative. Rigorous evaluation studies on the effect of vision assistance apps on daily task performance and quality of life are relatively rare. Moreover, evaluation criteria are difficult to establish, given the heterogeneity of the visual tasks and visual needs of the users. In addition to surveying literature on vision assistance apps, this review discusses the feasibility and necessity of conducting scientific research to understand visual needs and methods to evaluate real-world benefits.

Keyword(s): accessibility, assistive devices, mobile app, vision impairments, vision rehabilitation
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-111022-123837
2023-09-15
2024-04-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/vision/9/1/annurev-vision-111022-123837.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-111022-123837&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abraham CH, Boadi-Kusi B, Morny EKA, Agyekum P. 2022. Smartphone usage among people living with severe visual impairment and blindness. Assist. Technol. 34:611–18
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Akkara JD, Kuriakose A. 2019. Smartphone apps for visually impaired persons. Kerala J. Ophthalmol. 31:242–48
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Am. Found. Blind 2013. A review of freeware and shareware screen magnification software for Windows Rep., Am. Found. Blind Arlington, VA: https://www.afb.org/aw/14/4/15707
  4. Armstrong RA. 2018. Visual problems associated with traumatic brain injury. Clin. Exp. Optom. 101:716–26
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bennett CR, Bex PJ, Bauer CM, Merabet LB. 2019. The assessment of visual function and functional vision. Semin. Pediatr. Neurol. 31:30–40
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bhakhri R, Chun R, Coalter J, Jay WM. 2012. A survey of smartphone usage in low vision patients. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 53:4421
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bittner AK, Yoshinaga PD, Shepherd JD, Kaminski JE, Malkin AG et al. 2022. Acceptability of telerehabilitation for magnification devices for the visually impaired using various approaches to facilitate accessibility. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 11:4
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowers AR, Keeney K, Peli E. 2014. Randomized crossover clinical trial of real and sham peripheral prism glasses for hemianopia. JAMA Ophthalmol. 132:214–22
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Brady E, Morris MR, Zhong Y, White S, Bigham JP. 2013. Visual challenges in the everyday lives of blind people. CHI ‘13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems2117–26. New York: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Budrionis A, Plikynas D, Daniušis P, Indrulionis A. 2022. Smartphone-based computer vision travelling aids for blind and visually impaired individuals: a systematic review. Assist. Technol. 34:178–94
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Calabrèse A, Owsley C, McGwin G, Legge GE. 2016. Development of a reading accessibility index using the MNREAD acuity chart. JAMA Ophthalmol. 134:398–405
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Christy B, Pillai A. 2021. User feedback on usefulness and accessibility features of mobile applications by people with visual impairment. Ind. J. Ophthalmol. 69:555–58
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Coleman AL, Cummings SR, Yu F, Kodjebacheva G, Ensrud KE et al. 2007. Binocular visual-field loss increases the risk of future falls in older white women. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 55:357–64
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Coleman AL, Stone K, Ewing SK, Nevitt M, Cummings S et al. 2004. Higher risk of multiple falls among elderly women who lose visual acuity. Ophthalmology 111:857–62
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Colenbrander A. 2010. Assessment of functional vision and its rehabilitation. Acta Ophthalmol. 88:163–73
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Crossland MD, Macedo AF, Rubin GS. 2010. Electronic books as low vision aids. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 94:1109
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Crossland MD, Silva RS, Macedo AF. 2014. Smartphone, tablet computer and e-reader use by people with vision impairment. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 34:552–57
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Crossland MD, Starke SD, Imielski P, Wolffsohn JS, Webster AR. 2019. Benefit of an electronic head-mounted low vision aid. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 39:422–31
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Crossland MD, Thomas R, Unwin H, Bharani S, Gothwal VK et al. 2017. Tablet computers versus optical aids to support education and learning in children and young people with low vision: protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial, CREATE (Children Reading with Electronic Assistance To Educate). BMJ Open 7:e015939
     [Google Scholar]
  20. De Langhe B, Fernbach PM, Lichtenstein DR. 2016. Navigating by the stars: investigating the actual and perceived validity of online user ratings. J. Consum. Res. 42:817–33
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Deemer A, Bradley C, Ross N, Natale D, Itthipanichpong R et al. 2018. Low vision enhancement with head-mounted video display systems: Are we there yet?. Optom. Vis. Sci. 95:694–703
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Dickinson C, Al hefzi A 2019. Reading performance using smartphone applications compared to portable electronic magnifiers in simulated visual impairment. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 60:4025
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Dougherty B, Flom R, Bullimore M, Raasch T. 2015. Previous driving experience, but not vision, is associated with motor vehicle collision rate in bioptic drivers. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 56:6326–32
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Dougherty BE, Kehler KB, Jamara R, Patterson N, Valenti D, Vera-Diaz FA. 2011. Abandonment of low vision devices in an outpatient population. Optometry Vis. Sci. 88:1283–87
     [Google Scholar]
  25. du Toit R, Keeffe J, Jackson J, Bell D, Minto H, Hoare P. 2018. A global public health perspective: facilitating access to assistive technology. Optom. Vis. Sci. 95:883–88
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Ehrlich J, Ojeda L, Wicker D, Day S, Howson A et al. 2017. Head-mounted display technology for low-vision rehabilitation and vision enhancement. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 176:26–32
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Elmannai W, Elleithy K. 2017. Sensor-based assistive devices for visually-impaired people: current status, challenges, and future directions. Sensors 17:565
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Feng HL, Roth DB, Fine HF, Prenner JL, Modi KK, Feuer WJ. 2017. The impact of electronic reading devices on reading speed and comfort in patients with decreased vision. J. Ophthalmol. 2017:3584706
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Frey B, Southern C, Romero M. 2011. BrailleTouch: mobile texting for the visually impaired. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction19–25. Berlin: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Gill K, Mao A, Powell AM, Sheidow T. 2013. Digital reader versus print media: the role of digital technology in reading accuracy in age-related macular degeneration. Eye 27:639–43
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Gobeille MR, Malkin AG, Jamara R, Ross NC. 2018. Utilization and abandonment of low vision devices prescribed on a mobile clinic. Optom. Vis. Sci. 95:859
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Golubova E, Starke SD, Crossland MD, Wolffsohn JS. 2021. Design considerations for the ideal low vision aid: insights from de-brief interviews following a real-world recording study. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 41:266–80
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Gori M, Cappagli G, Tonelli A, Baud-Bovy G, Finocchietti S. 2016. Devices for visually impaired people: high technological devices with low user acceptance and no adaptability for children. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 69:79–88
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Gothwal VK, Thomas R, Crossland M, Bharani S, Sharma S et al. 2018. Randomized trial of tablet computers for education and learning in children and young people with low vision. Optom. Vis. Sci. 95:873
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Granquist C, Sun SY, Montezuma SR, Tran TM, Gage R, Legge GE. 2021. Evaluation and comparison of artificial intelligence vision aids: Orcam MyEye 1 and Seeing AI. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 115:277–85
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Griffin-Shirley N, Banda DR, Ajuwon PM, Cheon J, Lee J et al. 2017. A survey on the use of mobile applications for people who are visually impaired. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 111:307–23
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hakobyan L, Lumsden J, O'Sullivan D, Bartlett H 2013. Mobile assistive technologies for the visually impaired. Surv. Ophthalmol. 58:513–28
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Haymes SA, Johnston AW, Heyes AD. 2002. Relationship between vision impairment and ability to perform activities of daily living. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 22:79–91
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Holden B. 2007. Blindness and poverty: a tragic combination. Clin. Exp. Optom. 90:401–3
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Htike HM, Margrain TH, Lai YK, Eslambolchilar P. 2020. Ability of head-mounted display technology to improve mobility in people with low vision: a systematic review. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 9:26
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Inst. Hum. Cent. Des 2020. Massachusetts Commission for the Blind: inclusive design of workplaces for people who are low vision or blind Rep., Inst. Hum. Cent. Des. Boston: https://www.mass.gov/doc/mcb-combined-inclusive-design-report
  42. Int. Telecommun. Union 2021. Mobile network coverage Rep., Int. Telecommun. Union, Geneva https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/statistics/2021/11/15/mobile-network-coverage/
  43. Irvine D, Zemke A, Pusateri G, Gerlach L, Chun R, Jay WM. 2014. Tablet and smartphone accessibility features in the low vision rehabilitation. Neuroophthalmology 38:53–59
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Jiang E, Ma Z, Singh A, Bobba A, Park S et al. 2021. Field testing of All Aboard, an AI app for helping blind individuals to find bus stops (abstract). Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 62:3529
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. 1963. Studies of illness in the aged. The Index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 185:914–19
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Khimani KS, Battle CR, Malaya L, Zaidi A, Schmitz-Brown M et al. 2021. Barriers to low-vision rehabilitation services for visually impaired patients in a multidisciplinary ophthalmology outpatient practice. J. Ophthalmol. 2021:6122246
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Kovar MG, Lawton MP. 1994. Functional disability: activities and instrumental activities of daily living. In Annual Review of Gerontology and GeriatricsVol. 14:ed. MP Lawton, JA Teresi, pp. 57–75 New York: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Kuriakose B, Shrestha R, Sandnes FE. 2022. Tools and technologies for blind and visually impaired navigation support: a review. J. Inst. Electron. Telecommun. Eng. 39:3–18
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Lam N, Leat SJ. 2013. Barriers to accessing low-vision care: the patient's perspective. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 48:458–62
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Lawton MP, Brody EM. 1969. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 9:179–86
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Leat SJ, Fryer A, Rumney NJ. 1994. Outcome of low vision aid provision: the effectiveness of a low vision clinic. Optom. Vis. Sci. 71:199–206
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Li Z, Pundlik S, Luo G. 2013. Stabilization of magnified videos on a mobile device for visually impaired. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops54–55. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Locke K, McRae L, Peaty G, Ellis K, Kent M. 2022. Developing accessible technologies for a changing world: understanding how people with vision impairment use smartphones. Disabil. Soc. 37:111–28
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Luo G. 2020. How 16,000 people used a smartphone magnifier app in their daily lives. Clin. Exp. Optom. 103:847–52
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Luo G. 2021. What visual targets are viewed by users with a handheld mobile magnifier app. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 10:16
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Luo G, Pundlik S. 2021. Influence of COVID-19 lockdowns on the usage of a vision assistance app among global users with visual impairment: big data analytics study. J. Med. Internet Res. 23:e26283
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Luo G, Pundlik S. 2022. Usage patterns of head-mounted vision assistance app as compared to handheld video magnifier. Displays 75:102303
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Malkin AG, Bittner A, Knizak M, Peterson B, Estabrook M et al. 2022a. Factors related to proficiency following training to use new visual-assistive smartphone apps in seniors with low vision Paper presented at Assoc. Res. Vis. Ophthalmol. Annu. Meet. Denver, CO: May 1–5
  59. Malkin AG, Ross NC, Chan TL, Protosow K, Bittner AK. 2020. US optometrists' reported practices and perceived barriers for low vision care for mild visual loss. Optom. Vis. Sci. 97:45–51
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Malkin AG, Ross NC, Chun MW, Bittner AK, CARE Study Team 2022b. Why are visual assistive mobile applications underused by low vision patients?. Optom. Vis. Sci. 99:333–34
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Martiniello N, Eisenbarth W, Lehane C, Johnson A, Wittich W. 2022. Exploring the use of smartphones and tablets among people with visual impairments: Are mainstream devices replacing the use of traditional visual aids?. Assist. Technol. 34:34–45
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Massof RW, Ahmadian L, Grover LL, Deremeik JT, Goldstein JE et al. 2007. The Activity Inventory: an adaptive visual function questionnaire. Optometry Vis. Sci. 84:763–74
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Mednick Z, Jaidka A, Nesdole R, Bona M. 2017. Assessing the iPad as a tool for low-vision rehabilitation. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 52:13–19
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Moharrer M, Wang S, Dougherty BE, Cybis W, Ott BR et al. 2020. Evaluation of the driving safety of visually impaired bioptic drivers based on critical events in naturalistic driving. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 9:14
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Morrice E, Johnson AP, Marinier J, Wittich W. 2017. Assessment of the Apple iPad as a low-vision reading aid. Eye 31:865–71
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Moshtael H, Aslam T, Underwood I, Dhillon B. 2015. High tech aids low vision: a review of image processing for the visually impaired. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 4:6
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Mwilambwe A, Wittich W, Freeman EE. 2009. Disparities in awareness and use of low-vision rehabilitation. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 44:686–91
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Natl. Inst. Build. Sci 2015. Design Guideline for the Visual Environment: Version 6 Washington, DC: Natl. Inst. Build. Sci.
  69. Natl. Res. Counc 2002. Visual Impairments: Determining Eligibility for Social Security Benefits Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  70. Nguyen BJ, Chen WS, Chen AJ, Utt A, Hill E et al. 2019. Large-scale assessment of needs in low vision individuals using the Aira assistive technology. Clin. Ophthalmol. 13:1853–68
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Nguyen BJ, Kim Y, Park K, Chen AJ, Chen S et al. 2018. Improvement in patient-reported quality of life outcomes in severely visually impaired individuals using the Aira assistive technology system. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 7:30
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Nguyen H, Fujiwara K, Bradley C, Massof RW. 2021. Comparison of therapist ratings to low vision patient self-reports. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 62:3610
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Nouri R, Niakan Kalhori S, Ghazisaeedi M, Marchand G, Yasini M 2018. Criteria for assessing the quality of mHealth apps: a systematic review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 25:1089–98
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Øien TB. 2021. Universal design and low-vision rehabilitation: the case for a holistic lighting assessment. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 282:288–300
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Overbury O, Wittich W. 2011. Barriers to low vision rehabilitation: the Montreal Barriers Study. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 52:8933–38
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Owsley C, McGwin G, Lee PP, Wasserman N, Searcey K. 2009. Characteristics of low-vision rehabilitation services in the United States. Arch. Ophthalmol. 127:681–89
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Pamir Z, Bauer CM, Bailin ES, Bex PJ, Somers DC, Merabet LB. 2021. Neural correlates associated with impaired global motion perception in cerebral visual impairment (CVI). Neuroimage Clin 32:102821
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Park K, Kim Y, Nguyen BJ, Chen A, Chao DL. 2020. Quality of life assessment of severely visually impaired individuals using Aira assistive technology system. Transl. Vis. Sci. Tech. 9:21
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Perkins School Blind 2022. Screenreader comparisons Rep., Perkins School Blind Watertown, MA: https://www.perkins.org/resource/screenreader-comparisons/
  80. Perrin A, Atske S. 2021. Americans with disabilities less likely than those without to own some digital devices. Pew Research Center Sept. 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/10/americans-with-disabilities-less-likely-than-those-without-to-own-some-digital-devices/
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Pew Res. Cent 2021. Mobile fact sheet Rep., Pew Res. Cent. Washington, DC: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
  82. Pollard TL, Simpson JA, Lamoureux EL, Keeffe JE. 2003. Barriers to accessing low vision services. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 23:321–27
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Pundlik S, Singh A, Baghel G, Baliutaviciute V, Luo G. 2019. A mobile application for keyword search in real-world scenes. IEEE J. Transl. Eng. Health Med. 7:2900210
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Pundlik S, Yi H, Liu R, Peli E, Luo G. 2016. Magnifying smartphone screen using google glass for low-vision users. IEEE Transl. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25:52–61
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Roberts AE, Davenport TA, Wong T, Moon H-W, Hickie IB, LaMonica HM. 2021. Evaluating the quality and safety of health-related apps and e-tools: adapting the Mobile App Rating Scale and developing a quality assurance protocol. Internet Interv. 24:100379
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Robinson JL, Braimah Avery V, Chun R, Pusateri G, Jay WM 2017. Usage of accessibility options for the iPhone and iPad in a visually impaired population. Semin. Ophthalmol. 32:163–71
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Ross N, Ho J, Bradley C, Malkin A, Estabrook M et al. 2022. Exploring smartphone visual assistive applications in seniors with low vision Paper presented at Assoc. Res. Vis. Ophthalmol. Annu. Meet. Denver, CO: May 1–5
  88. Rubin GS. 2013. Measuring reading performance. Vis. Res. 90:43–51
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Ryan B. 2014. Models of low vision care: past, present and future. Clin. Exp. Optom. 97:209–13
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Senjam SS. 2021. Smartphones as assistive technology for visual impairment. Eye 35:2078–80
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Senjam SS, Foster A, Bascaran C, Vashist P. 2019. Awareness, utilization and barriers in accessing assistive technology among young patients attending a low vision rehabilitation clinic of a tertiary eye care centre in Delhi. Ind. J. Ophthalmol. 67:1548
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Senjam SS, Manna S, Bascaran C. 2021. Smartphones-based assistive technology: accessibility features and apps for people with visual impairment, and its usage, challenges, and usability testing. Aust. J. Optom. 13:311–22
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Smallfield S, Clem K, Myers A. 2013. Occupational therapy interventions to improve the reading ability of older adults with low vision: a systematic review. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 67:288–95
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Southall K, Wittich W. 2012. Barriers to low vision rehabilitation: a qualitative approach. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 106:261–74
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Statista 2022. Number of smartphone subscriptions worldwide from 2016 to 2021, with forecasts from 2022 to 2027 Rep., Statista, Hamburg, Ger https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/#:∼:text=The%20number%20of%20smartphone%20subscriptions,highest%20number%20of%20smartphone%20users
  96. Stelmack J. 2001. Quality of life of low-vision patients and outcomes of low-vision rehabilitation. Optom. Vis. Sci. 78:335–42
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Stoyanov SR, Hides L, Kavanagh DJ, Zelenko O, Tjondronegoro D, Mani M. 2015. Mobile app rating scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps. JMIR mHealth uHealth 3:e3422
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Szpiro SFA, Hashash S, Zhao Y, Azenkot S. 2016. How people with low vision access computing devices: understanding challenges and opportunities. ASSETS ‘16: Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility171–80. New York: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Tan HL, Aplin T, McAuliffe T, Gullo H. 2023. An exploration of smartphone use by, and support for people with vision impairment: a scoping review. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Thomas R, Barker L, Rubin G, Dahlmann-Noor A. 2015. Assistive technology for children and young people with low vision. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015:CD011350
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Turano KA, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, Munoz B, Rubin GS et al. 2004. Association of visual field loss and mobility performance in older adults: Salisbury Eye Evaluation Study. Optom. Vis. Sci. 81:298–307
     [Google Scholar]
  102. van Nispen RMA, Virgili G, Hoeben M, Langelaan M, Klevering J et al. 2020. Low vision rehabilitation for better quality of life in visually impaired adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020:CD006543
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Virgili G, Acosta R, Grover LL, Bentley SA, Giacomelli G. 2013. Reading aids for adults with low vision. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013:CD003303
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Wagner J, Vanderheiden GC, Sesto ME. 2006. Improving the usability of a mainstream cell phone for individuals with low vision. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 100:687–92
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Walker R. 2013. An iPad app as a low-vision aid for people with macular disease. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 97:110–12
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Walker R, Bryan L, Harvey H, Riazi A, Anderson SJ. 2016. The value of tablets as reading aids for individuals with central visual field loss: an evaluation of eccentric reading with static and scrolling text. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 36:459–64
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Watson GR, De l'Aune W, Long S, Maino J, Stelmack J. 1997. Veterans' use of low vision devices for reading. Optom. Vis. Sci. 74:260–65
     [Google Scholar]
  108. West SK, Rubin GS, Broman AT, Munoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, Turano K. 2002. How does visual impairment affect performance on tasks of everyday life? The SEE Project. Arch. Ophthalmol. 120:774–80
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Wilkinson ME. 2003. Low vision rehabilitation: a concise overview. Insight 28:111–19
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Winkler SL, Marszalek J, Wang X, Finch D, Rakoczy C et al. 2022. Veterans with traumatic brain injury–related ocular injury and vision dysfunction: vision rehabilitation utilization. Optom. Vis. Sci. 99:3–8
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Wittich W, Canuto A, Overbury O. 2013. Overcoming barriers to low-vision rehabilitation services: improving the continuum of care. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 48:463–67
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Wittich W, Jarry J, Morrice E, Johnson A. 2018. Effectiveness of the Apple iPad as a spot-reading magnifier. Optom. Vis. Sci. 95:704–10
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Wood LJ, Jolly JK, Buckley TM, Josan AS, MacLaren RE. 2021. Low luminance visual acuity as a clinical measure and clinical trial outcome measure: a scoping review. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 41:213–23
     [Google Scholar]
  114. World Health Organ 2018. Assistive technology Fact Sheet, World Health Organ. Geneva: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/assistive-technology
  115. Wu Y-H, Granquist C, Gage R, Crossland MD, Legge GE. 2020. Online survey of digital reading by adults with low vision. Optom. Vis. Sci. 97:249–56
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Wyatt JC, Thimbleby H, Rastall P, Hoogewerf J, Wooldridge D, Williams J. 2015. What makes a good clinical app? Introducing the RCP Health Informatics Unit checklist. Clin. Med. 15:519–21
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Yeo JH, Bae SH, Lee SH, Kim KW, Moon NJ. 2022. Clinical performance of a smartphone-based low vision aid. Sci. Rep. 12:10752
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Yousef R, Adwan O, Abu-Leil M. 2013. An enhanced mobile phone dialler application for blind and visually impaired people. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2:270–80
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Zemke A, Irvine D, Coalter J, Jay W. 2013. iPad versus closed circuit television low vision reading rates and preferences (abstract). Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 54:2749
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-111022-123837
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error