Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34003950›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2021

What Visual Targets Are Viewed by Users With a Handheld Mobile Magnifier App.

Gang Luo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Gang LuoSchepens Eye Research Institute, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Mobile video magnifier apps are used by many visually impaired people for seeing details that are beyond their visual capacity. Understanding the common types of visual targets will be importantly informative for low-vision research and assistive technology development. This study addressed this question through analysis of images captured by magnifier app users pursuing their daily activities. Methods: An iOS magnifier app, free to the public, was used to capture and upload images to the Azure Computer Vision cloud service for object recognition. Returned object tag results for each image were uploaded to the Umeng analytics server for aggregated tallies. Consolidated data from 24,295 users across 1 month were analyzed. More than 1300 types of object tags found in 152,819 images were grouped into 11 categories. The data collection and analyses were conducted separately for users who toggled on or off iOS vision-accessibility features. Results: For accessibility and nonaccessibility user groups, 60% to 70% of objects were nontextual, such as an indoor scene, human, or art. More than 40% of the images contained more than one object category. Accessibility users viewed textual objects more frequently than nonaccessibility users (41.1% vs. 29.8%), but overall, the probability ranking of categories was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions: Nontextual objects make up a major portion of visual needs of magnifier users across a wide range of vision loss. Translational Relevance: Low-vision research and vision assistance technology development should address the need for nontextual object viewing.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsPersons with Visual DisabilitiesSelf-Help DevicesVision, LowBlindnessHumans

Identifiers

PMID34003950
PMCPMC7980048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.