The median amount of television watched per day was 2 to 3 hours and was not different between the two groups (ordered logistic regression, z = 1.00, P = .32). As reported previously,29 the number of hours of television watching increased with age (z = 2.83, P = .005), and that did not vary significantly between the groups (z = 0.60, P = .59). Frequency of viewing reduced with increasing level of education (ordered logistic regression, z = 3.64, P < .001) and tended to be more for male participants (z = 1.76, P = .08). Four participants with hemianopia and three with normal vision reported watching no television (0 h/d). When watching television, 58% of people reported that their viewing occurred when there was usually no other viewer (“sometimes” or less). Participants with hemianopia were slightly less likely to watch television with others (ordered logistic regression, z = 1.90, P = .03), regardless of age (z = 1.31, P = .19). Conversely, participants with normal vision decreased the likelihood of watching in the presence of another viewer with increasing age (z = −2.46, P = .01). As shown in Fig. 2A, participants with hemianopia (58%) were more likely than participants with normal vision (18%) to report at least “some” difficulty watching television (ordered logistic regression, z = 4.57, P < .0001). There was no change with age in reported difficulty watching television (z = 0.91, P = .36). Comments about the experienced difficulties included not seeing things of interest on the blind side and difficulty with specific viewing situations (e.g., following ball path to right-handed batter in baseball, tennis, fast action) and with text, particularly scrolling text. Participants with hemianopia (30%) were more likely than participants with normal vision (6%) to report the use of a special strategy, assistive device, or visual aid while watching television or movies (logistic regression, z = 3.12, P = .003). The 24 participants with hemianopia who reported an assistive strategy for watching television reported (numbers add to >24, as some participants reported more than one strategy): only watching with a spouse who could assist with understanding (n = 2), using a video storage device such as a DVR or TiVo (allows going back to review segments, n = 4), compensatory scanning (n = 3), glasses specifically for television (n = 3), closing one eye (n = 2), tilting the head (n = 2), turning the head or looking to the side (n = 3), sitting to one side (n = 4), and using closed captions (n = 2). Six reported using peripheral prism glasses, and one reported that he/she did not help for viewing television. This survey was not able to assess whether these approaches provided real benefit, and it was not obvious to us how some of the reported strategies might help. We presume that a viewer would continue with the use of a strategy only if it was perceived to provide a benefit to him/her.
Most participants (73%) reported never using a portable device (e.g., iPhone, personal DVD player) to watch videos, with no difference between the groups (logistic regression, z = 0.74, P = .46). Older participants (z = 4.08, P < .001) and females (z = 1.94, P = .05) were less likely to have watched video on a handheld device. Of the 51 participants who reported watching video on handheld devices, there was a tendency for participants with hemianopia (22/29 reported “never”), as compared with participants with normal vision (10/22), to be less likely to report that they had difficulty seeing details (ordered logistic regression, z = 1.94, P = .05). It is possible that this outcome was a result of selection bias, with only those with hemianopia who were able to use a portable device to view video providing a response about difficulty.
Most participants (86%) reported having a computer at home, with no significant difference in availability between the two groups (ordered logistic regression, z = 1.06, P = .29). Older participants with normal vision were less likely to have a computer at home than younger participants (z = 2.45, P = .01), but there was no effect of age among the participants with hemianopia (z = 0.13, P = .90). Of the participants reported to have a computer at home, only 39% of the normal-vision participants and 30% of the participants with hemianopia watched movies (e.g., DVD) on the computer. Frequency of viewing movies on a computer decreased with increasing age (ordered logistic regression, z = 4.11, P < .001), with no difference between the two groups (z = 0.61, P = .54). Most participants with Internet access (127/191) reported watching Internet video content (e.g., YouTube, Hulu, television shows from network Web sites), with no difference between the groups (z = 0.16, P = .88) and frequency declined with increasing age (z = 6.74, P < .001). Among those people watching video materials on computer, it was uncommon for there to be another viewer present, with only 23 of 157 reporting another viewer often or always present, with participants with hemianopia tended to be less likely to have another viewer present (ordered logistic regression, z = 2.30, P = .02). Among participants with normal vision, the likelihood of having another viewer present decreased with age (z = 4.07, P < .001), whereas there was no variation with age among the participants with hemianopia (z = 0.12, P = .91). Participants with hemianopia (26% at least “sometimes”) were more likely (ordered logistic regression, z = 2.56, P = .01) to report having difficulty with details on a computer screen than normal-vision participants (7%), with no effect of age (z = 0.37, P = .72). More than a quarter (14/62) of the participants with hemianopia who used a computer reported at least “sometimes” to use assistive technologies, which was more than the 2% of the normal-vision participants who reported using assistive technologies (z = 2.32, P = .02). Older participants tended to be less likely to use assistive technologies with the computer (z = 1.93, P = .05). The reported assistive approaches were reducing viewing distance (n = 3), increasing mouse icon visibility (n = 3), large font size (n = 2), zoom software (n = 2), and reading software (n = 1). We are not aware of assistive technologies designed specifically to assist people with hemianopia in the use of computers.
About three-fourths of participants reported watching movies in a cinema, with most going to movie theaters a “few times a year.” Frequency of attendance decreased with age (ordered logistic regression, z = 3.48, P < .001), and participants with hemianopia reported lower frequency (z = 2.80, P = .05). In particular, participants with hemianopia (34%) were much more likely (logistic regression, z = 3.56, P < .001) to report never attending the cinema than normal vision (19%) (Fig. 2C). As shown in Fig. 2B, participants with hemianopia (31/72) were more likely to report at least “some” difficulty watching movies in a cinema (ordered logistic regression, z = 4.73, P < .001) than participants with normal vision (7/92). Turning the head (n = 2), sitting to one side (n = 3), compensatory scanning (n = 2), and peripheral prism glasses (n = 1) were reported as strategies to improve the viewing experience. Reasons for never or very infrequently attending the cinema or difficulties when attending included reports of missing information (n = 4) or missing objects on the blind side (n = 2) making it difficult to follow the story, the very large cinema screen (n = 4), fast action (n = 4) or reading text on the screen (n = 2), and uncertainty about being able to obtain a preferred seating location (to the back so that the screen subtends a smaller visual angle or on the blind side of the cinema, so that the screen is on the seeing side).
Many participants with hemianopia (24/80) reported never taking photographs, which was more likely than among participants with normal vision (logistic regression, z = 4.93, P < .001) (Fig. 2D). Overall, participants who had hemianopia (ordered logistic regression, z = 2.02, P = .04), were older (z = 4.10, P < .001), had less education (z = 2.40, P = .02), and were male (z = 1.80, P = .07) took photographs less frequently. Of those who did take photographs, there was neither difference between the groups (z = 1.33, P = .18) nor an effect of age (z = 0.20, P = .84) in the difficulty taking photographs (note that this subset was biased, as those who had most difficulty did not take photographs). Participants with hemianopia who expressed difficulties described problems locating the picture target using the device (14%), understanding the technology (20%), placing the picture target at the desired location in the picture (9%), fitting multiple targets in the picture (7%), and issues related to lighting or focusing (18%). Some participants with hemianopia reported not taking photographs because of cognitive problems (e.g., cannot find camera, difficulty operating the camera) or physical problems (e.g., tremor) and because others take the photographs instead (or take better photographs). Sharing of photographs was less frequently among older participants (OLR, z = 3.24, P = .001) and participants with less education (z = 2.55, P = .01) and did not vary between the two groups (z = 0.00, P > .999).
Most (56%) of the participants with hemianopia reported at least “some” difficulty watching television, which was much higher than among participants with normal vision. Similarly, a previous, smaller survey10 reported that 30% of participants with hemianopia reported difficulty with “following the action in programs” on television. In our survey, similar difficulties were also reported with related activities, watching video on a computer and movies at the cinema (Table 2, Fig. 2). Participants with hemianopia were much less likely to watch movies in a cinema and much less likely to ever take photographs. The lower rates of cinema attendance and photography were presumably because they found these tasks more difficult compared with people with normal vision and thus suggest that their vision impairment may make them refrain from engaging in these activities. While the difficulties leading to this reduced activity may not be all visual and could be from other factors such as cognitive or physical impairment, this population has reduced engagement in these activities. Conversely, despite reporting more difficulty watching television, participants with hemianopia reported watching slightly more television. Perhaps this reflects a reduction in other activities due to the vision impairment and that additional available time is used to watch television, as it is an easy option.
If we accept the estimate of 500,000 to 1,000,000 people with hemianopia in the United States11,12,14,15 and that our survey was representative of that population, this suggests that between 280,000 and 560,000 people with hemianopia in the United States feel that they have difficulty watching television. Although self-reported difficulties with activities of daily living, such as watching television, have been previously reported for hemianopia,10 there have been no assessment methods to measure this difficulty. In a separate study that is currently under review, Costela and colleagues provide data which shows that watching video is measurably more difficult for people with hemianopia, using a recently developed method we call sensory information acquisition.31,32 In this approach, information acquisition is a measure of the ability to follow the story. Even when watching video for enjoyment, if you cannot follow the story, the value of the activity is usually diminished.
Half of the participants with hemianopia expressed strong interest in assistive technology. One of the concerns with an intervention that modifies the displayed image is that it may be unacceptable to other viewers watching the same display. Most participants with hemianopia watched television with others infrequently (44/78, sometimes or less). Viewing without another person present provides the opportunity to use a rehabilitation aid that might be unacceptable to a viewer with normal vision. Participants with hemianopia reported that watching television or video on a computer while alone was common, and in a previous, related study, the median number of televisions per home was found to be two.29 People with hemianopia reported a variety of assistive methods (e.g., DVR), but we are aware of no previous reports of rehabilitation methods developed specifically to assist people with hemianopia watch television or video. In a separate unpublished study, Costela and colleagues investigated an innovative rehabilitation method that holds promise for improving the ability to follow the story (improved information acquisition). The approach involves providing a visual content guide to the location that contains most information. It is sufficient to look at this highlighted region to follow the story. The rationale being that the viewer no longer has to look into the blind side to check whether there are objects of interest (compensatory scanning) and that looking away from the object of interest to make a compensatory scan disrupts the ability to follow the story. If the highlighted region was not visible, then the viewer would know that the object of interest was on the blind side and make a gaze shift to locate the highlighted object of interest. However, viewers with hemianopia tend to follow the dynamic content guide effectively and do not usually lose it into the blind side.
Central vision loss (reduced visual acuity) is the most common form of low vision. Here we briefly report some differences and similarities in the responses of 116 participants with central vision loss (visual acuity of 20/60 or worse), most of whom participated in a previous study,29 to our participants with hemianopia. Participants with central vision loss reported similar frequency of television viewing (z = 0.15, P = .88), more difficulty watching television (z = 8.35, P < .001), less use of assistive strategies (z = 1.99, P = .05), but more interest in enhancement technologies for television and movies (z = 6.73, P < .001). Participants with central vision loss tended to be less likely to have a computer at home when corrected for age (z = 1.87, P = .06), were as likely to watch movies on a computer (z = 0.96, P = .34) or use the Internet (z = 0.93, P = .35), reported more difficulty viewing movies and video on a computer (z = 4.92, P < .001), were more likely to report using an assistive technology when using the computer (z = 3.65, P < .001), and were more likely to be interested in enhancement technologies for use when watching movies and videos using the computer (z = 6.93, P < .001). Overall, participants with central vision loss had a similar frequency of cinema attendance (z = 1.41, P = .16) but tended to be less likely to never attend (z = 1.65, P = .10).
In summary, our survey found that participants with hemianopia report difficulties watching video in various formats, including television, on computers, and in a movie theater. While these reported difficulties were not as marked as those reported by people with central visual loss, the reported difficulties were greater than those reported by participants with normal vision. These difficulties seem to lead to reduced attendance at movie theaters and reduced taking of photographs. These changes in behavior and difficulties with activities of daily living are related to a reduced quality of life experienced by people with hemianopia that may not be well captured by various instruments3,4,6,8,10 and warrant further investigation.
1. Meienberg O, Zangemeister WH, Rosenberg M, et al. Saccadic Eye Movement Strategies in Patients with Homonymous Hemianopia. Ann Neurol 1981;9:537–44.
2. Kerkhoff G, Munssinger U, Haaf E, et al. Rehabilitation of Homonymous Scotomata in Patients with Postgeniculate Damage of the Visual System: Saccadic Compensation Training. Restor Neurol Neurosci 1992;4:245–54.
3. Gall C, Lucklum J, Sabel BA, et al. Vision- and Health-related Quality of Life in Patients with Visual Field Loss After Postchiasmatic Lesions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:2765–76.
4. Gall C, Franke GH, Sabel BA. Vision-related Quality of Life in First Stroke Patients with Homonymous Visual Field Defects. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:33.
5. Yates JS, Lai SM, Duncan PW, et al. Falls in Community-dwelling Stroke Survivors: An Accumulated Impairments Model. J Rehabil Res Dev 2002;39:385–94.
6. Papageorgiou E, Hardiess G, Schaeffel F, et al. Assessment of Vision-related Quality of Life in Patients with Homonymous Visual Field Defects. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2007;245:1749–58.
7. Bowers AR, Mandel AJ, Goldstein RB, et al. Driving with Hemianopia, I: Detection Performance in a Driving Simulator. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci 2009;50:5137–47.
8. Chen CS, Lee AW, Clarke G, et al. Vision-related Quality of Life in Patients with Complete Homonymous Hemianopia Post Stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 2009;16:445–53.
9. Wood JM, McGwin G Jr, Elgin J, et al. On-road Driving Performance by Persons with Hemianopia and Quadrantanopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:577–85.
10. Warren M. Pilot Study on Activities of Daily Living Limitations in Adults with Hemianopsia. Am J Occup Ther 2009;63:626–33.
11. Gilhotra JS, Mitchell P, Healey PR, et al. Homonymous Visual Field Defects and Stroke in an Older Population. Stroke 2002;33:2417–20.
13. Rowe F, Brand D, Jackson CA, et al. Visual Impairment Following Stroke: Do Stroke Patients Require Vision Assessment? Age Ageing 2009;38:188–93.
14. Zhang X, Kedar S, Lynn MJ, et al. Homonymous Hemianopias: Clinical-anatomic Correlations in 904 Cases. Neurology 2006;66:906–10.
15. Townend BS, Sturm JW, Petsoglou C, et al. Perimetric Homonymous Visual Field Loss Post-stroke. J Clin Neurosci 2007;14:754–6.
16. Schiller JS, Lucas JW, Ward BW, et al. Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2010. Vital Health Stat 10 2012:1–207.
18. Nelles G, Esser J, Eckstein A, et al. Compensatory Visual Field Training for Patients with Hemianopia After Stroke. Neurosci Lett 2001;306:189–92.
19. Pambakian A, Currie J, Kennard C. Rehabilitation Strategies for Patients with Homonymous Visual Field Defects. J Neuroophthalmol 2005;25:136–42.
20. Roth T, Sokolov AN, Messias A, et al. Comparing Explorative Saccade and Flicker Training in Hemianopia: A Randomized Controlled Study. Neurology 2009;72:324–31.
21. Jobke S, Kasten E, Sabel BA. Vision Restoration through Extrastriate Stimulation in Patients with Visual Field Defects: A Double-blind and Randomized Experimental Study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009;23:246–55.
22. Pollock A, Hazelton C, Henderson CA, et al. Interventions for Visual Field Defects in Patients with Stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011:CD008388.
23. Hayes A, Chen CS, Clarke G, et al. Functional Improvements Following the Use of the NVT Vision Rehabilitation Program for Patients with Hemianopia Following Stroke. NeuroRehabilitation 2012;31:19–30.
24. de Haan GA, Melis-Dankers BJ, Brouwer WH, et al. The Effects of Compensatory Scanning Training on Mobility in Patients with Homonymous Visual Field Defects: A Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS One 2015;10:e0134459.
25. Matteo BM, Viganò B, Cerri CG. Visual Field Restorative Rehabilitation After Brain Injury. J Vis 2016;16:1–11.
26. Reinhard J, Schreiber A, Schiefer U, et al. Does Visual Restitution Training Change Absolute Homonymous Visual Field Defects? A Fundus Controlled Study. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:30–5.
27. Bowers AR, Keeney K, Peli E. Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial of Real and Sham Peripheral Prism Glasses for Hemianopia. JAMA Ophthalmol 2014;132:214–22.
28. Massof RW. A Model of the Prevalence and Incidence of Low Vision and Blindness among Adults in the U.S. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79:31–8.
29. Woods RL, Satgunam P. Television, Computer and Portable Display Device Use by People with Central Vision Impairment. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011;31:258–74.
30. Pambakian AL, Kennard C. Can Visual Function Be Restored in Patients with Homonymous Hemianopia? Br J Ophthalmol 1997;81:324–8.
31. Saunders DR, Bex PJ, Woods RL. Crowdsourcing a Normative Natural Language Dataset: A Comparison of Amazon Mechanical Turk and In-lab Data Collection. J Med Internet Res 2013;15:e100.
32. Saunders DR, Bex PJ, Rose DJ, et al. Measuring Information Acquisition from Sensory Input Using Automated Scoring of Natural-language Descriptions. PLoS One 2014;9:e93251.
Supplemental Digital Content
© 2018 American Academy of Optometry