↓ Skip to main content

Effective and Efficient Stand Magnifier Use in Visually Impaired Children

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effective and Efficient Stand Magnifier Use in Visually Impaired Children
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00944
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joyce Liebrand-Schurink, Ralf F. A. Cox, Ger H. M. B. van Rens, Antonius H. N. Cillessen, Ruud G. J. Meulenbroek, Frouke N. Boonstra

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of magnifier use in children with visual impairment who did not use a low vision aid earlier, in an ecologically valid goal-directed perceptuomotor task. Participants were twenty-nine 4- to 8-year-old children with visual impairment and 47 age-matched children with normal vision. After seeing a first symbol (an Lea Hyvärinen [LH] symbol), children were instructed to (1) move the stand magnifier as quickly as possible toward a small target symbol (another LH symbol that could only be seen by using the magnifier), (2) compare the two symbols, and (3) move the magnifier to one of two response areas to indicate whether the two symbols were identical. Performance was measured in terms of accuracy, response time, identification time, and movement time. Viewing distance, as well as hand and eye dominance while using the magnifier was assessed. There were no significant differences between the two groups in accuracy, reaction time, and movement time. Contrary to the prediction, children with visual impairment required less time to identify small symbols than children with normal vision. Both within-subject and between-subject variability in viewing distance were smaller in the visually impaired group than in the normally sighted group. In the visually impaired group, a larger viewing distance was associated with shorter identification time, which in turn was associated with higher accuracy. In the normally sighted group, a faster movement with the magnifier and a faster identification were associated with increasing age. The findings indicate that children with visual impairment can use the stand magnifier adequately and efficiently. The normally sighted children show an age-related development in movement time and identification time and show more variability in viewing distance, which is not found in visually impaired children. Visually impaired children seem to choose a standard but less adaptive strategy in which they primarily used their preferred hand to manipulate the magnifier and their preferred eye to identify the symbol. Registered at http://www.trialregister.nl; NTR2380.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Other 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Sports and Recreations 3 11%
Psychology 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,336,031
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,225
of 29,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,328
of 352,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#368
of 403 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,800 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 403 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.