Computerized Training Tools Used in Vision Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review

Research Objectives: Vision rehabilitation empowers individuals with visual impairments to enhance their functional performance of meaningful activities using residual vision. Vision rehabilitation services use computerized training tools to train the visual functions. The scoping review aimed to identify and summarize computerized training tools used in vision therapy to address visual field loss and visual scanning.

Design: This scoping review was conducted using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guideline, which is a checklist for writing a scoping review. We searched three databases: CINAHL, Medline, and Scopus. We included articles published in English between January 2014 and January 2024 that used computerized training tools to evaluate or treat visual field deficits and/or visual scanning. Two independent reviewers screened 839 articles using Covidence, and seven articles were included in this review.

Setting: All settings were included.

Participants: We included articles published in English between January 2014 and January 2024 that used computerized training tools to evaluate or treat visual field deficits and/or visual scanning at all settings. We excluded translated articles, sources missing full articles (with the exception of one article), diagnostic articles, and articles involving computerized training tools used in home programs or telehealth sessions. We chose to include all study designs to obtain as much information as possible to identify gaps in literature that should be addressed in future research in vision rehabilitation.

Interventions: Not applicable for this scoping review

Main Outcome Measures: The main outcomes of the included articles are test accuracy, time to complete each test, and adherence to scanning strategy.

Results: We found that computerized training tools provide a viable option to screening and compensating for visual field deficits and scanning. Three sources involved visual field screening, three involved visual field training, and one involved visual scanning training.

Conclusions: Future research studies, especially in the field of visual scanning, should focus on the use of computerized tools, given the limited findings.

Author(s) Disclosures: The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. This work is part of a PhD dissertation.