Background: The ORVIS infrastructure aims to facilitate the development and availability of valid and adapted tools that will allow functional, perceptual, cognitive and psychological evaluation of low vision clients by researchers and clinicians who work in low vision and visual impairment rehabilitation.
Methods: The tools developed or documented within ORVIS Infrastructure are tests or questionnaires which allow, or will allow to assess—in an accurate and reliable manner—characteristics related to visual impairment. The tools in development are: (I) questionnaire de repérage des hallucinations visuelles liées au syndrome de Charles-Bonnet (QR-SCB); (II) repérage des personnes agées présentant des INDices de déficience VISUELle (IndiVisuel); (III) mesure de l’impact de la déficience visuelle dans les activités quotidiennes (MIDVAQ) and (IV) M’EYE read test. The directory documents 14 tools and offers—within a descriptive sheet—characteristics, components and metrological properties as supported by cited scientific studies.
Results: The ORVIS Infrastructure, which aims at the development and availability of assessment tools, fills researchers’ and clinicians’ needs for measurement tools that are valid, effective and appropriate for use with a visually impaired clientele. Such tools are, especially in French, little known and hard to find, and represent a precious resource for those who want to evaluate the efficacy of treatments or interventions.
Conclusions: ORVIS is available at www.orvis.vision. Between November 2015 and September 2017, the directory has been accessed 1,383 times by 952 unique visitors.
Background: With the arrival of a new standardized tool and considering the multiple disadvantages of the actual method used for assesses lighting needs, the goal of the study was to compare the actual lighting assessment method used by the clinicians working in a rehabilitation center with the use of the LuxIQTM. As reading is found to be the main difficulty mentioned by the majority of the clients at the rehabilitation centre and that past studies have shown the impact of lighting on improving reading speed and deceasing print size, the hypothesis stated that the use of the standardized tool would be statistically significantly superior than the use of the standard method on the variables on reading speed, print size, ocular fatigue, application of the recommendations and satisfaction of the length of time read.
Methods: Three clinicians proceeded to home lighting assessments for 28 participants aged from 19 to 100 years (mean =75, SD =27) old diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration or glaucoma. The study evaluated and compared pre and post results between the two methods.
Results: The intervention did not have a statistically significant impact on any of the variables mentioned. The lighting assessment itself, with either the standard method or using the LuxIQ, statistically significantly decreased print size for reading (P<0.001, ω2 =0.47).
Conclusions: Lighting has a significant impact on reading print size. Participants value the assessment but encounter various obstacles that prevent them from applying the lighting recommendations. Considering the positive impact of lighting, finding a solution so participants may profit from the benefits of this intervention is crucial.
Background: Dementia is a syndrome that affects a person’s ability to understand and express information. The higher prevalence of vision and/or hearing losses among persons with dementia in long-term care (LTC) facilities interferes with the ability of nurses to provide optimal care because communication is compromised. Therefore, the detection and screening for sensory impairment is of the utmost importance in LTC facilities; however, there is currently no agreement among nursing professionals on how to best identify such losses for the purpose of further referral, and the need for a validated screening measure suitable for nurses in LTC facilities is clear. The present project aims to close this gap by investigating the screening recommendations of vision- and hearing-care professionals working with clients affected by dementia.
Methods: Eleven experts in audiology, optometry, deafblindness, and technology participated in individual semi-structured interviews on the topic of tools and strategies that can be used to screen individuals with dementia for sensory loss. Interview transcripts were coded by two evaluators using verbal agreement and consensus building.
Results: Three main themes emerged from the interviews with experts: barriers, facilitators, and strategies. Barriers to sensory screening were often mentioned, particularly impaired communication and lack of staff cooperation. Facilitators consisted uniquely of people, such as family members, intervenors, and nurses. Strategies for sensory screening in this population consisted of improving communication through repetition and encouragements; considerations based on familiarity; and inferring an impairment on the basis of patient behaviour. Few of our interviewees were knowledgeable on the topic of screening apps.
Conclusions: Our findings, to be integrated with a similar environmental scan conducted among LTC nurses, can inform the administration of sensory impairment screening tests among a population with dementia in order to optimize care.
Background: A growing number of older adults with vision loss require vision rehabilitation services to address reading difficulties. Braille may be the most appropriate option for those with functional blindness, poor visual prognoses or dual sensory loss. While standardized braille assessment and training protocols are in place to guide interventions with children, there is a high degree of inconsistency and a lack of evidence-based knowledge about best practices to use with adults and seniors who require braille training. Age-related declines in tactile acuity, motor dexterity and cognition present unique barriers to braille training, but very little is known about the impact of aging on factors related to braille reading performance. The aim of this scoping review is to identify the perceptual, motor, and cognitive factors related to braille reading performance and to determine how these factors have been assessed or measured among blind adults and elderly individuals in prior studies.
Methods: Using the scoping review method, a comprehensive search was conducted in three databases: PubMed, Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC), and the Cochrane library. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion to ensure internal agreement, based on identified exclusion criteria.
Results: The initial search resulted in 1,565 qualitative and quantitative articles. The results synthesize the perceptual, motor and cognitive factors known to predict braille reading performance, how these variables are impacted by the aging process, and how they have been measured in prior studies.
Conclusions: This scoping review is the first step in working towards the development of evidence-based assessment and training protocols to standardized practice with adult and senior clients who require braille training. It also serves to clarify where current knowledge gaps exist in order to guide future studies on braille reading and aging.
Background: The perceptions surrounding assistive technology have been shown to be increasingly stigmatizing in older adult populations. This stigmatization can lead individuals to the abandonment of the assistive device. Until now, the methods of identifying or predicting the stigma surrounding assistive technology has mostly been qualitative in nature. Here we present a novel quantitate and qualitative research study that uses neuro-cognitive (psychophysics and EEG) and eye tracking technology, in addition to a new questionnaire to investigate the stigma associated with assistive devices. Therefore, this approach plays a major role in understanding and predicting the neural and physiological correlates associated to stigma.
Methods: Thirty-four older adults (>50 years) took part in the study. To determine the psychophysiological predictors of stigma surrounding assistive technologies, we monitored brain activity using EEG, heart rate and eye movements using an eye-tracker while participants viewed a series of images containing either an older or younger individual in different social scenarios (e.g., talking to doctor, at coffee shop). In each scenario, the individual uses either no assistive device, a low stigmatizing device (e.g., iPad), or a high stigmatizing device (e.g., electronic magnifier).
Results: Here we present preliminary analysis of the eye movement data. Analysis shows that in comparison to images that contained a low stigmatizing device, in images that contain high stigmatizing devices, the latency to fixate the device is shorter, first fixation duration is longer, and the total number of fixations on the device are higher. The environment that the devices is used in has no effect on eye movement metrics.
Conclusions: Although the sample size is small, and based on a healthy older-adult population, these initial observations would indicate that latency to fixate and first fixation duration are predictors of stigma associated with assistive devices. Future research should expand this prediction to those actively using assistive devices, and how the measures predict abandonment over time.
