Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 25, 2025
A Standardized Obstacle Course for Assessment of Visual Function in Ultra Low Vision and Artificial Vision
Published on: February 11, 2014
Factors related to training time and achieving proficiency with visual-assistive mobile applications in visually
Alexis G Malkin, Ava K Bittner1, Jeffrey Ho2
1Department of Ophthalmology, Stein Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Significance:
A majority of visually impaired older adults were able to learn to proficiently use visual-assistive iPhone applications (apps) following a median 1 hour and/or multiple training sessions, which should be considered when planning vision rehabilitation service delivery, including the option for remote telerehabilitation for those who prefer that modality.
Purpose:
Older adults with low vision are increasingly using technology to improve their visual functioning. We examined whether age-related comorbidities were potential barriers to success in learning to use visual-assistive apps on a smartphone.
Methods:
A clinical trial assessed visual-assistive apps in 116 older adults aged 55+ years (mean [standard deviation], 72 [10] years). Subjects were randomized to use an app (SuperVision+, Seeing AI, or Aira) preloaded to a loaner iPhone and completed one-on-one training. App proficiency was measured by the participant's ability to use the iPhone/app without cueing at the end of training sessions. Training time was recorded for the initial session and totaled after subsequent sessions. Multiple regression models explored significant factors associated with training time and proficiency.
Results:
Median initial and total training times were 45 and 60 minutes, respectively. Increased initial and total training times were both significantly related to increased age (p<0.001), legal blindness (p<0.007), Seeing AI versus SuperVision+ app (p<0.03), and participants from New England versus California (p<0.001). Most (71%) achieved proficiency after the initial training session; those odds were significantly greater among younger participants (p=0.04), those who opted for telerehabilitation (p=0.03), those who had higher cognitive scores (p=0.04), or those who were from New England (p=0.04). The majority (90%) was ultimately proficient with the app; those odds were significantly greater among participants who already had an optical magnifier (p=0.008), but were unrelated to other factors including study site.
Conclusions:
Following multiple, extensive training sessions, age, mild cognitive loss, or level of visual impairment did not preclude gaining proficiency with visual-assistive apps by visually impaired seniors, but those factors were associated with longer training times. Telerehabilitation can be a viable option to provide app training remotely for visually impaired seniors who choose that modality.
