Eli Peli

Followers

Following

Co-author

Public Views

Steven Pinker

Harvard University

Timothy Jordan

Canadian University of Dubai

Adam M Croom

Case Western Reserve University

Hanung Adi Nugroho

Universitas Gadjah Mada (Yogyakarta)

Susanna Schellenberg

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Simon Cropper

University of Melbourne

Girish Kumar

University of California, Berkeley

Hakkı Tarkan Yalazan

Dokuz Eylül University

Martin Hunter

Tufts University

Luis Hernandez-garcia

University of Michigan

Interests

Uploads

Papers by Eli Peli

Multi-periscopic prism device for field expansion

Biomedical Optics Express, 2020

Patients with visual field loss frequently collide with other pedestrians, with the highest risk ... more Patients with visual field loss frequently collide with other pedestrians, with the highest risk being from pedestrians at a bearing angle of 45°. Current prismatic field expansion devices (≈30°) cannot cover pedestrians posing the highest risk and are limited by poor image quality and restricted eye scanning range (<5°). A new field expansion device: multi-periscopic prism (MPP); comprising a cascade of half-penta prisms provides wider shifting power (45°) with dramatically better image quality and wider eye scanning range (15°) is presented. Spectacles-mounted MPPs were implemented using 3D printing. The efficacy of the MPP is demonstrated using perimetry, photographic depiction, and analyses of the collision risk covered by the devices.

Evaluation of the Through-focus Curve of the Boston Keratoprosthesis

Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 2012

Driving with Low Vision: Who, Where, When, and Why

Elsevier eBooks, 2008

Driving is a privilege not a right. Yet, especially in the USA where public transportation is oft... more Driving is a privilege not a right. Yet, especially in the USA where public transportation is often lacking or limited driving is essential. Loss of driving privileges for the elderly leads to social isolation, economic difficulties, and limits access to healthcare and other services. Furthermore, driving cessation has been shown to increase depression amongst the elderly. For younger people loss or inability to gain driving privileges limits job opportunities, social interactions, and may severely restrict location of housing and life style. Thus one would not like to withhold driving privileges unless absolutely necessary. Interpretation of the American with Disabilities Act prohibits unjustified limiting of a driving license as discrimination against the disabled. The idea of low vision driving evokes emotional objections from lay people and professionals alike. This response is understandable as almost as many Americans die in car accidents every year (43 200 in 2005) as were killed in 7 years of the Vietnam War (58 965). Many people believe that low-vision driving will lead to an increase in these already frightening accident statistics. This belief, however, is not founded on scientific data, and indeed is frequently in direct contradiction to such data. The visual requirements for driving are frequently misunderstood due to reliance on driving regulations that appear to have been arbitrarily established in the face of a dearth of scientific evidence. As a result, the vision requirements for driving regulations vary widely from state to state and also differ significantly from regulations in other countries, most notably with respect to the regulations regarding restricted driving with low vision, with or without visual aids. Each state (and the District of Columbia) sets its own regulations for vision requirements for driving. This chapter reviews rules in all 51 jurisdictions with particular emphasis on the regulations governing driving with low vision (vision impairment). It highlights variations in vision criteria used to determine those who can drive in various states without restriction (unrestricted license), and the types of restrictions on when and where the visually impaired (with restricted licenses) may drive. An attempt is also made to account for or explain why specific regulations were developed. The data were taken from questionnaires completed by all 51 jurisdictions. The responses were summarized as state by state tables in a book by Peli and Peli and updated for changes that have occurred since the book’s publication.

Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

i-Perception, 2019

Classical sighting or sensory tests are used in clinical practice to identify the dominant eye. S... more Classical sighting or sensory tests are used in clinical practice to identify the dominant eye. Several psychophysical tests were recently proposed to quantify the magnitude of dominance but whether their results agree was never investigated. We addressed this question for the two most common psychophysical tests: The perceived-phase test, which measures the cyclopean appearance of dichoptically presented sinusoids of different phase, and the coherence-threshold test, which measures interocular differences in motion perception when signal and noise stimuli are presented dichoptically. We also checked for agreement with three classical tests (Worth 4-dot, Randot suppression, and Bagolini lenses). Psychophysical tests were administered in their conventional form and also using more dependable psychophysical methods. The results showed weak correlations between psychophysical measures of strength of dominance with inconsistent identification of the dominant eye across tests: Agreement ...

Eli Peli

Uploads

Papers by Eli Peli

Log In