Global features | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Citation | Low vision type | Task paradigm | Main manipulations | Results | Implications for design |
Barhorst-Cates et al. (2016) | Simulated FOV of 15°, 10°, 4°, or 0° | Real-world building-scale spatial learning paradigm Structured hallway environment | Vision condition (narrow vs. wide FOV) | 1. Pointing accuracy to remembered targets was impaired at 4° and 0° FOV, but intact at 15° and 10° 2. Increased cognitive demands starting at 10° and lower | Design spaces to reduce mobility hazards and the need for safety monitoring |
Barhorst-Cates et al. (2017) | Blur in an older adult sample P–R = 0.33 logMAR = 1.55 (20/708) | Real-world building-scale spatial learning paradigm Structured hallway environment | Physical guidance | 1. Pointing accuracy to remembered targets increased with a physical guide 2. Reducing cognitive load can increase spatial learning with low vision | Designing a space to reduce mobility hazards/monitoring may be especially important for locations frequented by older adults |
Barhorst-Cates et al. (2019) | Simulated FOV of 10° | Real-world building-scale spatial learning paradigm Complex structure; museum environment | Vision condition (narrow vs. wide FOV) | 1. Pointing accuracy decreased in narrow compared to wide FOV 2. Greater attentional demands resulted in narrow versus wide FOV 3. Effect of reduced FOV may be greater in complex, open environments | Consider regularity and complexity in design of spaces |
Barhorst-Cates et al. (2020) | Simulated FOV of 10° | Real-world building-scale spatial learning paradigm | Locomotion method (walking, wheelchair) Vision condition (narrow vs. wide FOV) Active versus passive search | 1. Pointing accuracy to remembered targets was equivalent in walking versus wheelchair 2. Active search with narrow FOV demanded more attention than passive search | Make key locations salient without requiring significant visual search |
Fortenbaugh et al. (2007) | Simulated FOV of 40°, 20°, 10°, or 0° | Spatial learning task in virtual environment Verbal and blind-walking distance estimates | Vision condition (FOV) Distance to targets (range from 2.7 to 11.1 m) Static versus walking during learning phase | 1. Memory errors for target location increased with decreasing FOV 2. Greater errors at larger distances 3. Distance underestimated in all vision conditions when viewer was static | Given difficulty with far targets, provide frequent nearby signage that would be visible from multiple positions Use standard distance between important locations that is viewable from some minimum field-of-view (40°) |
Fortenbaugh et al. (2008) | LV individuals (FOV loss) | Spatial learning task in virtual environment Replication in a real-world environment | FOV deficit | 1. Memory errors for target location increased with decreasing FOV 2. Underestimated distances 3. Angular error not affected as much | Given difficulty with far targets, provide frequent nearby signage that would be visible from multiple positions Use standard distance between important locations that is viewable from some minimum field-of-view (40°) |
Legge et al. (2016b) | Blind, LV, and normally sighted individuals | Distance and direction estimates using a path completion task | Level of sensory deficit | 1. No difference between groups, suggesting that vision was not necessary for accurate spatial updating | Design implications for low vision may be more relevant for larger-scale spaces |
Legge et al. (2016a) | Mild blur (20/135), severe blur (20/900), and narrow FOV (8°) | Distance and direction estimates using a path completion task Room size estimates | Room size vision condition Locomotion condition | 1. Reduced vision conditions did not impair distance estimates compared to normal vision 2. Severe blur impaired direction estimates and room-size judgments 3. No difference between walking and wheelchair | Create high contrast between wall and floor to improve perception of room size |
Rand et al. (2015) | Blur P–R = 0.76 logMAR = 1.44 (20/562) | Indoor navigation and spatial learning paradigm | Vision condition (Blur vs. normal vision) Physical guidance | 1. Pointing accuracy to remembered targets decreased in blur compared to normal vision 2. Pointing accuracy increased when mobility-related cognitive demands were decreased with a physical guide | Design spaces to reduce mobility hazards and the need for safety monitoring |
Rand et al. (2019) | Blur P–R = 0.76 logMAR = 1.44 (20/562) | Real-world estimates of distance traveled and speed of self-motion | Vision condition (Blur vs. normal vision) | 1. Distance traveled was overestimated in blur 2. Movement speed perceived to be faster in blur | Make walkway ends and walls highly salient |
Yamamoto and Philbeck (2013) | Simulated FOV of 3°, control FOV 107° × 86° | Stationary spatial learning task | Vision condition (narrow vs. wide FOV) | 1. Spatial layout memory impaired when FOV restricted 2. Impairment was attributed to reduced eye movements | Locate relevant informational objects near each other |