ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of visual function analysis of people with low vision using three different models of augmented reality devices.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Within-Population Comparison of the Psychometric Properties and Clinical Feasibility of Visual Function Questionnaires in Low Vision.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared visual function in individuals with low vision (>20/60) using three different models of augmented reality (AR) devices: Ziru, IrisVision, and NuEyes-Pro3. The distance visual acuity (VA) was measured in high luminance high contrast (HLHC), high luminance low contrast (HLLC), low luminance high contrast (LLHC), and low luminance low contrast (LLLC) settings. The other tests were near VA, distance and near contrast sensitivity (CS), color vision, depth perception and indoor navigation. The change in visual function without and with AR devices was analyzed. Out of 27 participants, 17 were female. The mean age was 66.7 ± 18.2 years. The median baseline VA was 0.66 (0.79) logMAR in HLHC, 0.87 (0.54) logMAR in HLLC, 0.84 (0.67) logMAR in LLHC and 1.04 (0.34) logMAR in LLLC. The median baseline near VA was 0.55(0.4) logMAR, distance and near CS was 1.10(0.26) logCS, and 1.20(0.30) logCS respectively. Distance and near vision showed significant differences with both Ziru and IrisVision (p < 0.01), but not with NuEyes. There was a significant change in CS using Ziru and IrisVision for both distance and near (p < 0.05) but both reduced significantly with NuEyes (p < 0.01). During the objective identification task on the indoor environment using AR devices, head-level objects were missed more compared to waist or floor-level objects across all three models. Majority of the visual functions improved with Ziru and IrisVision, with limited improvement in certain lighting condition of distance visual acuity with NuEyes.
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.