Orientation and mobility outcome measures

Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual.     

Optical mechanisms regulating emmetropisation and refractive errors: evidence from animal models

Our current understanding of emmetropisation and myopia development has evolved from decades of work in various animal models, including chicks, non-human primates, tree shrews, guinea pigs, and mice. Extensive research on optical, biochemical, and environmental mechanisms contributing to refractive error development in animal models has provided insights into eye growth in humans. Importantly, animal models have taught us that eye growth is locally controlled within the eye, and can be influenced by the visual environment. This review will focus on information gained from animal studies regarding the role of optical mechanisms in guiding eye growth, and how these investigations have inspired studies in humans. We will first discuss how researchers came to understand that emmetropisation is guided by visual feedback, and how this can be manipulated by form-deprivation and lens-induced defocus to induce refractive errors in animal models. We will then discuss various aspects of accommodation that have been implicated in refractive error development, including accommodative microfluctuations and accommodative lag. Next, the impact of higher order aberrations and peripheral defocus will be discussed. Lastly, recent evidence suggesting that the spectral and temporal properties of light influence eye growth, and how this might be leveraged to treat myopia in children, will be presented. Taken together, these findings from animal models have significantly advanced our knowledge about the optical mechanisms contributing to eye growth in humans, and will continue to contribute to the development of novel and effective treatment options for slowing myopia progression in children.     

Use of the Optomap with lid retraction and its sensitivity and specificity#

Background: Optomap uses the ultra‐wide field scanning laser ophthalmoscopy to provide retinal examination. It permits fundus examination without the use of a mydriatic, which is more comfortable for the patients. This paper determines the sensitivity and specificity of the Optomap for detecting retinal signs under non‐mydriatic conditions. Methods: Fifty‐four eyes identified with retinal/choroidal signs and eight normal eyes were recruited from 31 Hong Kong Chinese subjects. Photo‐documentation of fundal changes was obtained with the Optomap under non‐mydriatic conditions before a dilated fundus examination by a clinician using standard procedures. The eyelid was retracted using a cotton bud when necessary. Dilated fundus examinations were performed by another clinician using binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy and slitlamp biomicroscopy with a fundus lens. The Optomap images were evaluated by four other investigators under masked condition. The International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision (ICD‐9‐CM) was adopted for recording retinal features. Screening results were compared with those obtained using the dilated fundus examination as the gold standard. Results: The cotton bud method for eyelid retraction showed an improvement in the area of retina that could be visualised. The sensitivity and specificity of the Optomap averaged 76.4 and 71.9 per cent, respectively. Some fundal signs were missed by all observers in the Optomap but not with the biomicroscope. These included white‐without‐pressure, lattice degeneration, paramacular drusen and pigmentary changes at central fundus. Conclusion: Optomap serves as a reliable screening tool for fundus examination especially because it covers a much wider area of the peripheral retina than other digital instruments for fundus photography.