July 2018
Volume 59, Issue 9
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2018
Robot assistants for perimetry: Patient experience and performance
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Allison M McKendrick
    Optometry & Vision Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  • Astrid Zeman
    Optometry & Vision Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  • Ilham Aden
    Optometry & Vision Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  • Dilek Aktepe
    Optometry & Vision Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  • Daisy Bhagat
    Optometry & Vision Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  • Kieren Do
    Optometry & Vision Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  • Huy D Nguyen
    Optometry & Vision Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  • Andrew Turpin
    Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Allison McKendrick, CenterVue SpA (C), Haag-Streit, AG (F), Heidelberg Engineering, GmBH (F); Astrid Zeman, None; Ilham Aden, None; Dilek Aktepe, None; Daisy Bhagat, None; Kieren Do, None; Huy Nguyen, None; Andrew Turpin, CenterVue SpA (C), Haag-Streit, AG (F), Heidelberg Engineering, GmBH (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support  ARC LP 150100815
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2018, Vol.59, 6027. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Allison M McKendrick, Astrid Zeman, Ilham Aden, Dilek Aktepe, Daisy Bhagat, Kieren Do, Huy D Nguyen, Andrew Turpin; Robot assistants for perimetry: Patient experience and performance. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):6027.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Standard visual field testing can be boring for both the patient and operator. Having an operator actively invigilate a test is ideal, but competing demands often result in minimal supervision. This study aimed to evaluate performance and subjective experience of perimetrically naïve subjects who received feedback during testing from: a human; a humanoid robot; a disembodied voice (computer speaker); and no feedback; . We tested the hypothesis that the presence of a humanoid robot conferred advantages over voice commands alone.

Methods : Twenty-two perimetrically naïve adults (aged 21-31 years) participated in a four visual field tests conducted using an Octopus 900 (Haag-Streit AG), controlled with the Open Perimetry Interface to enable automated feedback. All received initial introduction to perimetry from a human operator, and then participated in four tests with feedback conditions: 1) human; 2) humanoid robot (Figure 1: NAO Robot, Softbank Robotics, Japan); 3) computer speaker; 4) no feedback. The robot and computer speaker output were generated using the same “voice”, with minor differences in pitch but identical voice shaping. Feedback rules for the speaker and robot were identical. After each test, a survey was completed regarding test engagement using Likert scaling. At the end, an exit survey comparing all four conditions was completed. Perimetric performance was evaluated by comparison of mean sensivitivity (dB), fixation losses and false positive responses between feedback modes (repeated measures ANOVA).

Results : There was no effect of feedback type on mean sensitivity, fixation losses or false positives (p<0.01). Participants strongly preferred having feedback relative to no feedback (p<0.001). Subjective ratings of the experience with the three assistant types differed (p<0.001). Post-hoc testing revealed no difference in overall rating of experience between the human and the robot (p=0.40); but both were preferred to the disembodied voice (human versus voice, p<0.01; robot versus voice, p<0.01).

Conclusions : People like human interaction during perimetry. Our data suggests that humanoid robots can be used to replace aspects of this interaction. Regular visual field assessment is a necessary part of glaucoma management. Making the experience more enjoyable for both patients and operators may improve compliance and attitude to perimetry, leading to improved clinical outcomes.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.

 

NAO Robot assistant

NAO Robot assistant

×
×

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.

×