We compared visual function in individuals with low vision (>20/60) using three different models of augmented reality (AR) devices: Ziru, IrisVision, and NuEyes-Pro3. The distance visual acuity (VA) was measured in high luminance high contrast (HLHC), high luminance low contrast (HLLC), low luminance high contrast (LLHC), and low luminance low contrast (LLLC) settings. The other tests were near VA, distance and near contrast sensitivity (CS), color vision, depth perception and indoor navigation. The change in visual function without and with AR devices was analyzed. Out of 27 participants, 17 were female. The mean age was 66.7 (18.2) years. The median baseline VA was 0.66 (0.49) logMAR in HLHC, 0.87 (0.54) logMAR in HLLC, 0.84 (0.67) logMAR in LLHC and 1.04 (0.34) logMAR in LLLC. The median baseline near VA was 0.55(0.4) logMAR, distance and near CS was 1.10(0.26) logCS, and 1.20(0.30) logCS respectively. Distance and near vision showed significant differences with both Ziru and IrisVision (p<0.01), but not with NuEyes. There was a significant change in CS using Ziru and IrisVision for both distance and near (p<0.05) but both reduced significantly with NuEyes (p<0.01). The baseline functional vision score (FVS) was 45.76 (44.47) which improved to 79.04 (33.98) with Ziru and 76.14 (33.76) with IrisVision significantly, whereas it significantly reduced to 35.00 (33.97) with NuEyes (p<0.01). During the objective identification task on the indoor mobility course using AR devices, head-level objects were missed more compared to waist or floor-level objects across all three models. Majority of the visual functions improved with Ziru and IrisVision, with limited improvement in certain lighting condition of distance visual acuity with NuEyes.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Wichita State University board of ethics approved this study

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.