Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
SIGNIFICANCE Performance-based outcome measures are crucial for clinical trials of field expansion devices. We implemented a test simulating a real-world mobility situation, focusing on detection of a colliding pedestrian among multiple noncolliding pedestrians, suitable for measuring the effects of homonymous hemianopia and assistive devices in clinical trials. PURPOSE In preparation for deploying the test in a multisite clinical trial, we conducted a pilot study to gather preliminary data on blind-side collision detection performance with multiperiscopic peripheral prisms compared with Fresnel peripheral prisms. We tested the hypothesis that detection rates for colliding pedestrians approaching on a 40° bearing angle (close to the highest collision risk when walking) would be higher with 100Δ oblique multiperiscopic (≈42° expansion) than 65Δ oblique Fresnel peripheral prisms (≈32° expansion). METHODS Six participants with homonymous hemianopia completed the test with and without each type of prism glasses, after using them in daily mobility for a minimum of 4 weeks. The test, presented as a video on a large screen, simulated walking through a busy shopping mall. Colliding pedestrians approached from the left or the right on a bearing angle of 20 or 40°. RESULTS Overall, blind-side detection was only 23% without prisms but improved to 73% with prisms. For multiperiscopic prisms, blind-side detection was significantly higher with than without prisms at 40° (88 vs. 0%) and 20° (75 vs. 0%). For Fresnel peripheral prisms, blind-side detection rates were not significantly higher with than without prisms at 40° (38 vs. 0%) but were significantly higher with prisms at 20° (94 vs. 56%). At 40°, detection rates were significantly higher with multiperiscopic than Fresnel prisms (88 vs. 38%). CONCLUSIONS The collision detection test is suitable for evaluating the effects of hemianopia and prism glasses on collision detection, confirming its readiness to serve as the primary outcome measure in the upcoming clinical trial.
Bowers et al. (Sat,) studied this question.