A Practical Indoor Mobility Course to Assess the Functional Effect of Tunnel Vision

  • Ali M. Alshaghthrah 1-Department of Optometry, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. 2-Faculty of Life Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
  • Chris M. Dickinson Faculty of Life Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Keywords: Low vision, Tunnel vision, Mobility performance, Functional performance

Abstract

Purpose

To design and validate an indoor mobility course that is sensitive and easy to assemble in a variety of settings.

Method

Seventy participants were asked to walk twice along a 14 metre indoor corridor containing 16 obstacles, once in each direction. Twenty participants suffered from varying degrees of tunnel vision (TV) due to retinitis pigmentosa (TVPs) and the TV was simulated in the remaining fifty normally-sighted participants (SIPs).The VA, CS and VF were measured. The binocular field of view (FoV) of the TVPs varied from 4° to 21o. The FoV of the SIPs was constricted using goggles and ranged from 4° to 22°. The SIPs repeated the test at a second visit. In each case the time taken to complete the test was expressed as the percentage preferred walking speed (PPWS) and the number of collisions was recorded.

Results

For the SIPs, the PPWS and the collision scores both showed a significant relationship to FoV on both visits; for PPWS: r = 0.58; r = 0.56; p <0.0001, respectively; for collisions:        r = -0.50, r = -0.55, p < 0.0001, respectively. Generally, no significant difference was found between the mobility scores between visits. The FoV of the TVPs was significantly related to their PPWS scores, r = 0.40, p = 0.04. No relationship was found between the TVPs FoV and collision scores. A significant relationship was found between the TVPs’ VA and collisions (r = 0.40, p = 0.03). There was also a moderate but not significant relationship between the TVPs’ CS and collisions.

Conclusion

This mobility course is relatively short and does not require dedicated space, so could be easily replicated in other studies. The results indicate that this design is valid and that the course is a useful tool for assessing functional performance in tunnel vision patients.

Author Biographies

Ali M. Alshaghthrah, 1-Department of Optometry, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. 2-Faculty of Life Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Assistant Professor of Clinical Optometry

Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences

Collage of Applied Medical Sciences

Chris M. Dickinson, Faculty of Life Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Professor of Clinical OptometryFaculty of Life Sciences

References

Black, A., Lovie-Kitchin, J., Woods, R., Arnold, N., Byrnes, J., & Murrish, J. (1997). Mobility performance with retinitis pigmentosa. Clin Exp Optom, 80(1), 1-12.

Brown, B., Brabyn, L., Welch, L., Haegerstrom-portnoy, G., & Colenbrander, A. (1986). Contribution of Vision Variables to Mobility in Age-Related Maculopathy Patients. Am J Optom Physiol Opt, 63(9), 733-739.

Cohen, J. (1993). An overview of enhancement techniques for peripheral field loss. J Am Optom Assoc, 64( 1), 60-70

Dickinson, C. (1998). Low Vision Principles and Practice (first ed.): Butterworth-Heinemann,oxford.

Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. London: Chapman & Hall.

Faye, E. E. (1976). Clinical low vision Boston Little, Brown and Co.

Geruschat, D., & Turano, K. (2002). Connecting research on retinitis pigmentosa to the practice of orientation and mobility. J Vis Impair Blind, 96(2), 69-85.

Geruschat, D., Turano, K., & Stahl, J. (1998). Traditional measures of mobility performance and retinitis pigmentosa. Optom Vis Sci, 75(7), 525-537.

Hassan, S., Hicks, J., Lei, H., & Turano, K. (2007). What is the minimum field of view required for efficient navigation? Vision Res, 47(16), 2115-2123.

Hassan, S., Lovie-Kitchin, J., & Woods, R. (2002). Vision and Mobility Performance of Subjects with Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Optom Vis Sci, 79, 697–707.

Haymes, S., Guest, D., Heyes, A., & Johnston, A. (1996). Mobility of people with retinitis pigmentosa as a function of vision and psychological variables. Optom Vis Sci, 73(10), 621-637.

Kuyk, T., & Elliott, J. (1999). Visual factors and mobility in persons with age-related macular degeneration. J Rehabil Res Dev, 36(4), 303-312.

Kuyk, T., Elliott, J., & Fuhr, P. (1998). Visual Correlate of Mobility in Real World Setting in older adults with Low Vision. Optom Vis Sci, 75(7), 538-547.

Leat, S., & Lovie-Kitchin, J. (2006). Measuring mobility performance: experience gained in designing a mobility course. Clin Exp Optom, 89(4 ), 215–228.

Leat, S., & Lovie-Kitchin, J. (2008). Visual function, visual attention, and mobility performance in low vision. Optom Vis Sci, 85(11), 1049–1056.

Long, R., Rieser, J., & Hill, E. (1990). Mobility In Individuals With Moderate Visual Impairments. J Vis Impair Blind, 84(3), 111-118.

Lovie-Kitchin, J., Mainstone, J., Robinson, J., & Brian, B. (1990). What areas of of the visual field are important for mobility in low vision patients? Clin Vision Sc, 5(3), 249-263.

Lovie-Kitchin, J., Woods, R., & Black, A. (1996). Effect of illuminance on the mobility performance of adults with retinitis pigmentosa. Optom Vis Sci, 73, 203.

Lovie-Kitchin, J. E., Soong, G. P., Hassan, S. E., & Woods, R. L. (2010). Visual field size criteria for mobility rehabilitation referral. Optom Vis Sci, 87(12), 948-957.

Marron, J., & Bailey, I. (1982). Visual factors and orientation-mobility performance. Am J Optom Physiol Opt, 59(5), 413-426.

Pelli, D., Robson, J., & Wilkins, A. (1988). The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vision Sc, 2(3), 187-196.

Soong, G., Lovie-Kitchin, J., & Brown, B. (2001). Does mobility performance of visually impaired adults improve immediately after orientation and mobility training? Optom Vis Sci, 78( 9), 657–666.

Soong, G., Lovie-Kitchin, J., & Brown, B. (2004). Measurements of preferred walking speed in subjects with central and peripheral vision loss. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 24( 4), 291–295.

Sugawara, T., Hagiwara, A., Hiramatsu, A., Ogata, K., Mitamura, Y., & Yamamoto, S. (2010). Relationship between peripheral visual field loss and vision-related quality of life in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Eye, 24(4), 535-539.

Szlyk, J., Fishman, G., Grover, S., Revelins, B., & Derlacki, D. (1998). Difficulty in performing everyday activities in patients with juvenile macular dystrophies: comparison with patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Br J Ophthalmol, 82, 1372-1376.

Szlyk, J., Seiple, W., Lderman, D., Kelsch, R., Ho, K., & McMahon, T. (1998). Use of bioptic Amorphic lenses to expand the visual field in patients with peripheral loss. Optom Vis Sci, 75(7), 518-524.

Szlyk, J., Seiple, W., Stelmack, J., & McMahon, T. (2005). Use of prisms for navigation and driving in hemianopic patients. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 25, 128-135.

Turano, K., Geruschat, D., Stahl, J., & Massof, R. (1999). Perceived visual ability for independent mobility in persons with retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 40(5), 865-877.

Turano, K., Rubin, G., & Quigley, H. (1999). Mobility performance in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 40( 12), 2803–2809.

Wilcox, D., & Burdett, R. (1989). Contrast sensitivity function and mobility in elderly patients. J Am Optom Assoc, 60, 504-507.

Wilcox, R. (2011). Introduction to robust estimation & hypothesis testing: Academic Press.

Published
2014-12-15
Section
Scientific Article