PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
CONCLUSIONS: Performance-based outcome measures are crucial for clinical trials of field expansion devices. We implemented a test simulating a real-world mobility situation, focusing on detection of a colliding pedestrian among multiple noncolliding pedestrians, suitable for measuring the effects of homonymous hemianopia and assistive devices in clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: In preparation for deploying the test in a multisite clinical trial, we conducted a pilot study to gather preliminary data on blind-side collision detection performance with multiperiscopic peripheral prisms compared with Fresnel peripheral prisms. We tested the hypothesis that detection rates for colliding pedestrians approaching on a 40° bearing angle (close to the highest collision risk when walking) would be higher with 100Δ oblique multiperiscopic (≈42° expansion) than 65Δ oblique Fresnel peripheral prisms (≈32° expansion).
METHODS: Six participants with homonymous hemianopia completed the test with and without each type of prism glasses, after using them in daily mobility for a minimum of 4 weeks. The test, presented as a video on a large screen, simulated walking through a busy shopping mall. Colliding pedestrians approached from the left or the right on a bearing angle of 20 or 40°.
RESULTS: Overall, blind-side detection was only 23% without prisms but improved to 73% with prisms. For multiperiscopic prisms, blind-side detection was significantly higher with than without prisms at 40° (88 vs. 0%) and 20° (75 vs. 0%). For Fresnel peripheral prisms, blind-side detection rates were not significantly higher with than without prisms at 40° (38 vs. 0%) but were significantly higher with prisms at 20° (94 vs. 56%). At 40°, detection rates were significantly higher with multiperiscopic than Fresnel prisms (88 vs. 38%).
CONCLUSIONS: The collision detection test is suitable for evaluating the effects of hemianopia and prism glasses on collision detection, confirming its readiness to serve as the primary outcome measure in the upcoming clinical trial.
OBJECTIVE: In preparation for deploying the test in a multisite clinical trial, we conducted a pilot study to gather preliminary data on blind-side collision detection performance with multiperiscopic peripheral prisms compared with Fresnel peripheral prisms. We tested the hypothesis that detection rates for colliding pedestrians approaching on a 40° bearing angle (close to the highest collision risk when walking) would be higher with 100Δ oblique multiperiscopic (≈42° expansion) than 65Δ oblique Fresnel peripheral prisms (≈32° expansion).
METHODS: Six participants with homonymous hemianopia completed the test with and without each type of prism glasses, after using them in daily mobility for a minimum of 4 weeks. The test, presented as a video on a large screen, simulated walking through a busy shopping mall. Colliding pedestrians approached from the left or the right on a bearing angle of 20 or 40°.
RESULTS: Overall, blind-side detection was only 23% without prisms but improved to 73% with prisms. For multiperiscopic prisms, blind-side detection was significantly higher with than without prisms at 40° (88 vs. 0%) and 20° (75 vs. 0%). For Fresnel peripheral prisms, blind-side detection rates were not significantly higher with than without prisms at 40° (38 vs. 0%) but were significantly higher with prisms at 20° (94 vs. 56%). At 40°, detection rates were significantly higher with multiperiscopic than Fresnel prisms (88 vs. 38%).
CONCLUSIONS: The collision detection test is suitable for evaluating the effects of hemianopia and prism glasses on collision detection, confirming its readiness to serve as the primary outcome measure in the upcoming clinical trial.
摘要：
结论：基于性能的结果测量对于场扩张装置的临床试验至关重要。我们实施了一个模拟现实世界移动情况的测试，专注于检测多个非碰撞行人中的碰撞行人，适合在临床试验中测量同义偏盲和辅助设备的效果。
目的：在准备在多中心临床试验中部署测试时，我们进行了一项试点研究，以收集与菲涅耳外围棱镜相比，多潜望镜外围棱镜的盲侧碰撞检测性能的初步数据。我们测试了以下假设：在100Δ倾斜多潜望镜（≈42°扩展）下，以40°方位角（接近行走时的最高碰撞风险）接近碰撞行人的检测率将高于65Δ倾斜菲涅耳外围棱镜（≈32°扩展）。
方法：六名同型偏盲的参与者在有和没有每种棱镜眼镜的情况下完成了测试，在日常活动中使用它们至少4周后。测试，在大屏幕上呈现为视频，模拟步行通过一个繁忙的购物中心。碰撞行人以20或40°的方位角从左侧或右侧接近。
结果：总体而言，在没有棱镜的情况下，盲侧检测仅占23％，而在棱镜的情况下提高到73％。对于多潜望镜棱镜，在40°的情况下，盲侧检测明显高于没有棱镜的情况（88vs.0%)和20°(75vs.0%)。对于菲涅耳外围棱镜，在40°有棱镜的情况下，盲侧检出率并没有显着提高（38vs.0％），但在20°的棱镜下明显更高（94vs.56%）。在40°时,多潜望镜的检出率明显高于菲涅耳棱镜(88vs.38%)。
结论：碰撞检测测试适用于评估偏盲和棱镜眼镜对碰撞检测的影响，确认其准备在即将进行的临床试验中作为主要结果指标。
目的：在准备在多中心临床试验中部署测试时，我们进行了一项试点研究，以收集与菲涅耳外围棱镜相比，多潜望镜外围棱镜的盲侧碰撞检测性能的初步数据。我们测试了以下假设：在100Δ倾斜多潜望镜（≈42°扩展）下，以40°方位角（接近行走时的最高碰撞风险）接近碰撞行人的检测率将高于65Δ倾斜菲涅耳外围棱镜（≈32°扩展）。
方法：六名同型偏盲的参与者在有和没有每种棱镜眼镜的情况下完成了测试，在日常活动中使用它们至少4周后。测试，在大屏幕上呈现为视频，模拟步行通过一个繁忙的购物中心。碰撞行人以20或40°的方位角从左侧或右侧接近。
结果：总体而言，在没有棱镜的情况下，盲侧检测仅占23％，而在棱镜的情况下提高到73％。对于多潜望镜棱镜，在40°的情况下，盲侧检测明显高于没有棱镜的情况（88vs.0%)和20°(75vs.0%)。对于菲涅耳外围棱镜，在40°有棱镜的情况下，盲侧检出率并没有显着提高（38vs.0％），但在20°的棱镜下明显更高（94vs.56%）。在40°时,多潜望镜的检出率明显高于菲涅耳棱镜(88vs.38%)。
结论：碰撞检测测试适用于评估偏盲和棱镜眼镜对碰撞检测的影响，确认其准备在即将进行的临床试验中作为主要结果指标。
