Users' subjective evaluation of electronic vision enhancement systems.

The aims of this study were (1) to elicit the users' responses to four electronic head-mounted devices (Jordy, Flipperport, Maxport and NuVision) and (2) to correlate users' opinion with performance. Ten patients with early onset macular disease (EOMD) and 10 with age-related macular disease (AMD) used these electronic vision enhancement systems (EVESs) for a variety of visual tasks. A questionnaire designed in-house and a modified VF-14 were used to evaluate the responses. Following initial experience of the devices in the laboratory, every patient took home two of the four devices for 1 week each. Responses were re-evaluated after this period of home loan. No single EVES stood out as the strong preference for all aspects evaluated. In the laboratory-based appraisal, Flipperport typically received the best overall ratings and highest score for image quality and ability to magnify, but after home loan there was no significant difference between devices. Comfort of device, although important, was not predictive of rating once magnification had been taken into account. For actual performance, a threshold effect was seen whereby ratings increased as reading speed improved up to 60 words per minute. Newly diagnosed patients responded most positively to EVESs, but otherwise users' opinion could not be predicted by age, gender, diagnosis or previous CCTV experience. User feedback is essential in our quest to understand the benefits and shortcoming of EVESs. Such information should help guide both prescribing and future development of low vision devices.