SynthesisJournal of vision2023
A systematic review of extended reality (XR) for understanding and augmenting vision loss.
Synthesis in Journal of vision, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- 'Such a lot of bother': Qualitative results of a home trial of a wearable electronic vision enhancement system for people with age-related macular degeneration.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Trial
- Distinct roles of central and peripheral vision in rapid scene understanding.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Evaluation of an Augmented-Reality Head-Mounted Display Among Patients With Glaucomatous Tunnel Vision.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Augmented reality (AR) rehabilitation for homonymous hemianopia: 'prism-free' field expansion via smart glasses.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Commentary: Impact of extended reality (XR) simulation on ophthalmology training outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Simulated prosthetic vision confirms checkerboard as an effective raster pattern for epiretinal implants.Journal of neural engineering · 2025Article
- Assistive technology use in domestic activities by people who are blind.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Usability of Virtual Interview Training for Transition-Age Youth with Visual Impairments.International journal of human-computer interaction · 2025Article
- Aligning Visual Prosthetic Development With Implantee Needs.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Aligning visual prosthetic development with implantee needs.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Bridging the Gap: Exploring Opportunities, Challenges, and Problems in Integrating Assistive Technologies, Robotics, and Automated Machines into theHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Towards aJournal of neural engineering · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over the past decade, extended reality (XR) has emerged as an assistive technology not only to augment residual vision of people losing their sight but also to study the rudimentary vision restored to blind people by a visual neuroprosthesis. A defining quality of these XR technologies is their ability to update the stimulus based on the user's eye, head, or body movements. To make the best use of these emerging technologies, it is valuable and timely to understand the state of this research and identify any shortcomings that are present. Here we present a systematic literature review of 227 publications from 106 different venues assessing the potential of XR technology to further visual accessibility. In contrast to other reviews, we sample studies from multiple scientific disciplines, focus on technology that augments a person's residual vision, and require studies to feature a quantitative evaluation with appropriate end users. We summarize prominent findings from different XR research areas, show how the landscape has changed over the past decade, and identify scientific gaps in the literature. Specifically, we highlight the need for real-world validation, the broadening of end-user participation, and a more nuanced understanding of the usability of different XR-based accessibility aids.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.