April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
Reading Success with a Video Magnifier in Patients with Central Vision Loss
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Mary Lou Jackson
    Harvard Dept of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Kimberly Schoessow
    Harvard Dept of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Jennifer Wallis
    Harvard Dept of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 4242. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Mary Lou Jackson, Kimberly Schoessow, Jennifer Wallis; Reading Success with a Video Magnifier in Patients with Central Vision Loss. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):4242.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : The most common goal for patients with vision loss who present for vision rehabilitation is to be able to read. This pilot study investigated objective and subjective reading success with a video camera magnifier provided at first contact with a vision rehabilitation team.

Methods: : Twenty-four subjects were randomized to receive a video camera magnifier either on their first visit (Intervention Group) or at the end of vision rehabilitation (Control Group). The Control Group could elect to purchase optical magnifiers at their first visit, as is typical of usual care. Subjects had visual acuity of less than 20/40 and greater than 20/400 in the better eye, normal cognitive abilities, and no previous experience with a video camera magnifier. Reading was assessed four times (T1: first visit, T2: one month after first visit prior to occupational therapy training (OT), T3: after training with OT, and T4: one month after OT, by using the International Reading Speed Texts (IReST) and by documenting ability to read a check, a phone number and medication label. The Activity Inventory (AI, modified version) was used as subjective measure of reading success. Here we report reading assessment at T1 and T2.

Results: : The Intervention Group reported improvement of reading ability on the AI by T2 (t(16)=4.9, p<.05; F(1,16)=8.38, MSE= .94, p= .011, eta²= .344). The Intervention Group also showed improvement in their ability to read a phone number in the phonebook from enrollment to T2 (t(16)= 3.76, p< .05). Both groups demonstrated improvement from T1 to T2 on the IReST and their ability to read the check, and medication label (F(1,16)= 15.08, MSE= 964.41, p= .001, eta²= .485; F(1,16)= 4.99, MSE= .75, p= .040,eta²= .238; F(1,16)=10.56, MSE= .82, p= .005, eta²= .398, respectively).

Conclusions: : Patients who are given a video magnifier when they present for vision rehabilitation, prior to training by an occupational therapist, have greater subjective reading success compared to controls. Further study will examine benefit of training, and reading success of patients receiving the video magnifier at the end of rehabilitation.

Clinical Trial: : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov 09 11 116

Keywords: low vision • macula/fovea • age-related macular degeneration 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×