Abstract
As usual, this issue of the Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness (JVIB) reflects the diversity of our readership. Within these pages, readers will find information about goalball players (Kimyon & Ince), audio description practices (Hutchinson & Eardley), teachers’ perceptions of the use of assistive technology in classrooms (Al-Zboon), key components of functional vision assessments (Kaiser et al.), self-advocacy (Lieberman & Childs), color temperature preferences of people with central field loss (Vincent et al.), barriers to physical activity of adolescents (Gür et al.), and the relationship between somatosensory cues and postural stability (Yagev et al.). Diversity is also reflected in the representation of our contributing authors who are from Canada, England, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and the United States. Their contributions serve to remind us that blindness affects people across the world and that improving the lives of people with visual impairments is a common objective that crosses international borders and variety of disciplines.
According to estimates by the World Health Organization (2019), 196 million people worldwide have age-related macular degeneration. Of this number, 10.4 million experience significant visual impairment. Medical treatments to preserve vision in patients with macular degeneration are still being explored. Readers of JVIB, however, are aware that rehabilitation can reduce the effect of this visual impairment on independent functioning. In this volume, further evidence of the power of rehabilitation services is provided in the article by Vincent et al. on color temperature preferences.
At their clinic, these Canadian researchers initially tested a small group of volunteers diagnosed with macular disease with a special instrument, the LuxIQ, to determine acuity and visual comfort under different color temperature and illumination levels. Predictions based on results were made for the most effective lighting conditions for each participant. Not surprisingly, decisions about lighting preferences were not consistent across subjects but were based on a variety of individual factors.
Vincent et al. then had low vision therapists reexamine participants in their homes and apply lighting modifications based on clinical results and participant input. The modifications included changing lightbulbs to reflect the predicted color preferences, repositioning fixtures, adding task lighting, and reducing glare. Comparisons of pre- and post-intervention measurements confirmed that even after three weeks, the majority of participants experienced improved reading speed and comfort, could read smaller print, and reported engaging in activities for longer periods.
Although not without limitations, the Vincent et al. paper is noteworthy because it describes quasi-experimental research that was conducted on older adults (which is relatively rare) and because the researchers took the extra (and unusual) step to confirm their clinical findings with results observed in the natural environment, participants’ homes. Their study emphasizes the interdisciplinary nature of low vision care and reinforces the relatively simple, low-cost solutions—individualized adjustments to lighting and glare—that can make a meaningful difference to someone experiencing vision loss. For many of the world’s estimated 10.4 million people affected by macular disease, these kinds of environmental modifications should be relatively attainable, making this exploratory research particularly relevant. Given its practical implications, it is an article that is definitely worth reading.