Effects of Glaucoma
on path integration
in virtual reality
M.A. Safa Andac
M.Sc. Francie Stolle
Advisor: Prof. Dr. Michael Hoffmann
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 955590.
Outline
NAVIGATION: INTRODUCTION
How good are glaucoma patients during navigation in VR?
Hoste A.M., 2003
Collett, T. S., & Graham, P. (2004)
NAvigation: methods
Outcome Measures
- Travel Time
- Pointing Time
- Error distance
- Start from Point 0
- Move to Point 1
- Remember the position
- Move to Point 2 (second waypoint)
- Move to Point 3 (final waypoint)
- Point the position to be remembered
1
2
3
0
NAVIGATION: results
GROUP + DAYLIGHT
NAVIGATION: results
GROUP + DAYLIGHT
NAVIGATION: results
DAYLIGHT
NAVIGATION: results
GROUP + DAYLIGHT
DAYLIGHT
GROUP + DAYLIGHT
What is the effect of visual impairment on navigation performance?
VI: VISUAL ACUITY
BCVA[logMAR]
VI: VISUAL FIELD
VF (MD)
VI: OCT
pRFNL
VI and TRAVEL TIME - VF Defect (MD)
Visual Field explains the variance in travel time
VI and POINTING TIME - VF DEFECT (MD)
Visual Field explains the variance in pointing time
VI and DISTANCE ERROR - VISUAL ACUITY (LOGMAR)
Visual Acuity explains the variance in distance error
- Insecurity in glaucoma patients makes them slower
- Visual Field deficits
- Accuracy improvement in the environment with daylight
- Trade-off between time and accuracy
- Visual acuity affects distance judgement
CONCLUSION
OUTLOOK
- Equiluminant Environment / Glaring Effect
- Broader Range Cohort
- Time Limit for Pointing Task
- Different Paths
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
THANKS!
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 955590.
Aging, Cognition
& Technology Group
Visual Processing Lab
Matthieu Bernard
Vladislava Segen
Prof. Thomas Wolbers
Khaldoon Al-Nosairy
Gokulraj Prabhakaran