Advertisement

Low Vision pp 490-501 | Cite as

Low Vision Performance as a Function of Task Characteristics

  • Shelly Marmion
Conference paper

Abstract

A crucial component of the rehabilitation process for low vision persons is the enhancement of visual function through the optimization of residual vision. Intervention strategies of potential benefit are numerous. CORN [1] has proposed a model of low vision visual functioning describing the process as having three distinct components or dimensions, each of which can be subject to intervention. These include (1) Visual Abilities, consisting of the five physiological components of vision, (2) Stored and Available Individuality, consisting of aspects of the individual which impact on performance, and (3) Environmental Cues, consisting of object attributes which determine their visibility. Intervention techniques related to this third dimension have considerable potential in terms of both practical value and widespread applicability, being perhaps the easiest and least expensive of interventions to effect. However, despite this potential, much is still known about the relative benefits of specific environmental modifications to the enhancement of residual vision, and the extent to which facilitative effects are consistent across differing visual conditions and tasks.

Keywords

Variable Effect Stimulus Effect Visual Performance Stimulus Size Target Speed 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A.L. Corn: Visual function: A theoretical model for individuals with low vision. J. Visual Impairment & Blind. 77, 373 (1983)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S.N. Greenberg, L.E. Krueger: Effect of letter orientation and sequential redundancy on the speed of letter search. Memory and Cognition. 11, 181 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H.C. Weston: Light, Sight and Work, 2nd ed. (Lewis, London 1962)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C.C. Krischer, R. Meissen: Reading speed under real and simulated visual impairment. J. Visual Impairment & Blind. 77, 386 (1983)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L.H. Lehon: Development of lighting standards for the visually impaired. J. Visual Impairment & Blind. 74,249 (1980)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.W. Smith, M. Rea: Proofreading under different levels of illumination. J. Illum. Eng. Soc. 8, 47 (1978)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S.W. Smith, M. Rea: Performance of a reading test under different levels of illumination. J. Ilium. Eng. Soc. 12, 29 (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    I Lie: Relation of visual acuity to illumination, contrast, and distance in the partially sighted. Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt. 54, 528 (1977)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Miles: Productivity and Comfort of the Visually Impaired Worker as a Function of Low Vision Aid Usage and Illumination/Color Contrast Modifications. (Mississippi State University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision, 1984)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G.E. Legge, G.S. Rubin, D.G. Pelli, M. M. Schleske: Psychophysics of reading TL. Low vision. Vision Res. 25,253 (1985)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P.R. Boyce: Age, illuminance, visual performance and preference. Light. Res. Tech. 5,125 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shelly Marmion

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations