June 2020
Volume 61, Issue 7
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2020
Usage of head-mounted video display (HMD) systems during a comparative study home trial
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ashley Deemer
    Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Kyoko Fujiwara
    Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Chris Bradley
    Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • James Deremeik
    Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Rob Chun
    Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Frank Werblin
    Molecular & Cell Biology, University of California Berkeley, California, United States
  • Robert W Massof
    Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Ashley Deemer, None; Kyoko Fujiwara, None; Chris Bradley, None; James Deremeik, None; Rob Chun, None; Frank Werblin, IrisVision (E), IrisVision (P), IrisVision (F), IrisVision (I), IrisVision (R), IrisVision (S); Robert Massof, Evergaze (C), IrisVision (P), IrisVision (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support  National Eye Institute EY026617 and EY028077
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2020, Vol.61, 930. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Ashley Deemer, Kyoko Fujiwara, Chris Bradley, James Deremeik, Rob Chun, Frank Werblin, Robert W Massof; Usage of head-mounted video display (HMD) systems during a comparative study home trial. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(7):930.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose : We are conducting a clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of a virtual bioptic telescope in an HMD low vision enhancement system with a wide field of view to currently employed specifications in HMD vision enhancement technology through patient reported outcome measures and usage data analytics. As these systems are being developed and frequently implemented into clinical vision rehabilitation, it is important to evaluate the usage and uptake of these systems with patients’ daily activities. By tracking the usage and magnification specifications of the device, visual function outcome measures may be further explained and correlated.

Methods : Patients were randomized into two arms with the following HMD specifications: 1. with a magnification bubble embedded in a large unmagnified 70° field of view (bubble) and 2. with full-screen magnification in a 45° field of view (legacy). Participants completed testing to evaluate various visual function domains then took the device home for a 2-4 week trial period. Participants were encouraged to use the device in their daily activities while usage data was tracked and recorded by a sensor when the device is head borne.

Results : Results for the first 33 low vision participants are reported (n=17 legacy, n=16 bubble). All participants had BCVA of <20/60 in the better-seeing eye and at least 70° of peripheral visual field. Mean age was 65.3 years with no difference in age or BCVA between groups. The average min/day used during the trial period was 32.46 (ranging from 1.47 to 103.1) across both groups. The average cumulative number of minutes used during the home trial across both groups was 416.72 (ranging from 15.58 to 2236.59). The average number of days the device was used was 8.85. Comparing legacy vs bubble, the average min/day was 42.62 vs 21.67 (p=0.030) and the average number of days used was 10.24 vs 7.38 respectively (p=0.145). Six reported they would definitely want to buy the device (4 legacy, 2 bubble) with 1 within the 1st quartile of use, 2 in each the 2nd and 3rd quartiles, and 1 within the 4th quartile.

Conclusions : On average patients use the HMD device for about half an hour/day in their daily activities. Legacy device users logged more min/day compared to bubble device users. Usage may be affected by the simplicity of the device and training received, therefore it may be prudent to tailor each device to preferences of each individual patient.

This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.


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.