Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of task design, manipulations, results and implications for the Global Features papers included in the review

From: How can basic research on spatial cognition enhance the visual accessibility of architecture for people with low vision?

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
  1. P–R Pelli–Robson contrast sensitivity value, LV low vision, Blur simulated reduced acuity and contrast sensitivity, Snellen values are in parentheses