Cited by 75Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesRetinal Development and Disorders

FLORA™: phase I development of a functional vision assessment for prosthetic vision users

Open access
Geruschat, Duane R, Flax, Marshall, Tanna, Nilima, Bianchi, Michelle, Fisher, Andy, Goldschmidt, Mira, Fisher, Lynne, Dagnelie, Gislin +4 more·2015·Clinical and Experimental Optometry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Research groups and funding agencies need a functional assessment suitable for an ultra-low vision population to evaluate the impact of new vision-restoration treatments. The purpose of this study was to develop a pilot assessment to capture the functional visual ability and well-being of subjects whose vision has been partially restored with the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System. METHODS: The Functional Low-Vision Observer Rated Assessment (FLORA) pilot assessment involved a self-report section, a list of functional visual tasks for observation of performance and a case narrative summary. Results were analysed to determine whether the interview questions and functional visual tasks were appropriate for this ultra-low vision population and whether the ratings suffered from floor or ceiling effects. Thirty subjects with severe to profound retinitis pigmentosa (bare light perception or worse in both eyes) were enrolled in a clinical trial and implanted with the Argus II System. From this population, 26 subjects were assessed with the FLORA. Seven different evaluators administered the assessment. RESULTS: All 14 interview questions were asked. All 35 tasks for functional vision were selected for evaluation at least once, with an average of 20 subjects being evaluated for each test item. All four rating options—impossible (33 per cent), difficult (23 per cent), moderate (24 per cent) and easy (19 per cent)—were used by the evaluators. Evaluators also judged the amount of vision they observed the subjects using to complete the various tasks, with 'vision only' occurring 75 per cent on average with the System ON, and 29 per cent with the System OFF. CONCLUSION: The first version of the FLORA was found to contain useful elements for evaluation and to avoid floor and ceiling effects. The next phase of development will be to refine the assessment and to establish reliability and validity to increase its value as an assessment tool for functional vision and well-being.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cxo.12242

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • FLORA is a tool to provide a subjective assessment to capture the functional visual ability and well-being of visual prosthesis patients.

    “One promising development has been the Functional Low-Vision Observer Rated Assessment (FLORA), a tool to provide a subjective assessment to capture the functional visual ability and well-being of visual prosthesis patients (Geruschat et al., 2015).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. [1]Benav H Restoration of useful vision up to letter recognition capabilities using subretinal microphotodiodes Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2010 2010 5919 22 21096939
  2. [2]Humayun MS Interim results from the international trial of Second Sight's visual prosthesis Ophthalmology 2012 119 4 779 88 22244176 PMC3319859
  3. [3]MacLaren RE Pearson RA Stem cell therapy and the retina Eye (Lond) 2007 21 10 1352 9 17914439
  4. [4]Radtke ND Vision improvement in retinal degeneration patients by implantation of retina together with retinal pigment epithelium Am J Ophthalmol 2008 146 2 172 182 18547537
  5. [5]Stelmack JA Stelmack TR Massof RW Measuring low-vision rehabilitation outcomes with the NEI VFQ-25 Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002 43 9 2859 68 12202503
  6. [7]Massof RW The Activity Inventory: an adaptive visual function questionnaire Optom Vis Sci 2007 84 8 763 74 17700339 PMC6742517
  7. [8]de l'Aune WR Williams MD Welsh RL Outcome assessment oft he rehabilitation of the visually impaired Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Develoment 1999 36 4 273 293 10678451
  8. [10]Kuyk T Elliott JL Visual factors and mobility in persons with age-related macular degeneration J Rehabil Res Dev 1999 36 4 303 12 10678453
  9. [11]Kuyk T Elliott JL Fuhr PS Visual correlates of mobility in real world settings in older adults with low vision Optom Vis Sci 1998 75 7 538 47 9703043
  10. [12]Leat S Lovie-Kitchin JE Measuirng mobility performance: experience gained in desigining a mobility course Clinical and Experimental Optometry 2006 89 4 215 228 16776729
  11. [13]Lane FJ Responses of potential users to the intracortical visual prosthesis: final themes from the analysis of focus group data Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2012 7 4 304 13 22458249
  12. [14]Geruschat DR Turano KA Stahl JW Traditional measures of mobility performance and retinitis pigmentosa Optom Vis Sci 1998 75 7 525 37 9703042
  13. [15]Ludt R Goodrich G Change in visual perceptual detection distances for low vision travelers as a result of dynamic visual assessment and training Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2002 96 1 7 21
  14. [16]Soong GP Lovie-Kitchin JE Brown B Does mobility performance of visually impaired adults improve immediately after orientation and mobility training? Optom Vis Sci 2001 78 9 657 66 11587200
  15. [17]Szlyk JP Performance of the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2004 98 5 261 75
  16. [18]Turano KA Perceived visual ability for independent mobility in persons with retinitis pigmentosa Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999 40 5 865 77 10102283
  17. [19]Latham K Usherwood C Assessing visual activities of daily living in the visually impaired Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2010 30 1 55 65 20444110
  18. [20]Davis C Lovie-Kitchin JE Thompson B Psychosocial adjustment to age-related macular degeneration Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 1995 89 1 16 27
  19. [21]Elliott JL Kuyk TK Self-reported functional and psychosocial outcomes of blind rehabilitation Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 1994 88 3 206 212
  20. [22]Evans RL Werkhoven W Fox HR Treatment of social isolation and loneliness in a sample of visually impaired elderly persons Psychol Rep 1982 51 1 103 8 7134334
  21. [23]Foxall MJ Low-vision elders living arrangements, loneliness, and social support J Gerontol Nurs 1994 20 8 6 14 8077631
  22. [24]Good G La Grow S Alpass F An age-cohort study of older adults with and without visual impairments: activity, independence, and life satisfaction Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2008 102 9 517 527
  23. [25]La Grow S Alpass F Stephens C Economic standing, health status and social isolation among visually impaired persons aged 55 to 70 in New Zealand Journal of Optometry 2009 2 3 155 158
  24. [26]La Grow S Determinants of the overall quality of life of older persons who have difficulty seeing: the importance of the ability to get around Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2011 105 10 720 30

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Geruschat, D. R., Flax, M., Tanna, N., Bianchi, M., Fisher, A., Goldschmidt, M., Fisher, L., Dagnelie, G., Deremeik, J., Smith, A., Anaflous, F., & Dorn, J.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Wisconsin Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  • Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Greater Baltimore Medical Center (US)
  • Focal Point, Bristol, UK
  • Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Drexel University Elkins Park Campus (US)
  • Second Sight Medical Products (US)
Corresponding author
Geruschat, Duane R
Venue
Clinical and Experimental Optometry
Published
2015-07-01
Volume
98
Issue
4
Pages
342-347
ISSN
  • 0816-4622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1444-0938
OpenAlex
W1625106747
Cited by
75
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 2
FWCI
3.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical and Experimental Optometry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (EY020778)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Retinal Development and Disorders
Keywords
flora, functional vision assessment, retinal prosthesis, Argus II, retinitis pigmentosa, vision restoration, floor and ceiling effects, well-being, scale development
MeSH terms
Humans, Pilot Projects, Retinitis Pigmentosa, Vision, Ocular, Reproducibility of Results, Visual Prosthesis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review