ClinicalTrials.gg
Sign In
CompletedNCT05456581SPOTUpdated Sep 29, 2026Results posted

Scotoma Perimetry Oculomotor Training

An interventional study of 'Scotoma awareness' Training and Control Training in Macular Degeneration and Central Visual Impairment, sponsored by University of Alabama at Birmingham. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 89 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-29.

Sponsored by University of Alabama at Birmingham · Not applicable, Interventional, and Basic science

Updated Sep 29, 2026Results postedStudy documents posted+2 moreGo to Updates ↓
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
21
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 89 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The proposed research is relevant to public health because a greater understanding of plasticity after central vision loss can inform new therapies for treating low vision and has potential to benefit millions of individuals suffering from low vision. The treatment of low vision is particularly relevant to the mission of the NEI to support research on visual disorders, mechanisms of visual function and preservation of sight.

Declines in vision are particularly common in older adults and thus increasing our understanding of how to cre- ate effective means of improving vision is also highly relevant to the mission of the NIA to support research on aging and the health and well-being of older people.

Read the detailed description

This proposal tests a novel 'scotoma awareness' approach to aid those with Macular Degeneration (MD). MD is the leading cause of central vision loss worldwide. MD patients spontaneously develop oculomotor strategies to overcome loss of central vision, such as developing a new peripheral fixation spot to replace the fovea (preferred retinal locus, or PRL). However, development of a PRL and the rate of success in developing one vary greatly, meaning some patients live years without making effective use of their spared vision. Recent, studies in Vision Science show that training healthy participants with gaze-contingent displays, obstructing central vision ('simulated scotoma'), leads to development of PRLs at a faster time scale than found for MD patients. Additionally, oculomotor metrics developed in our lab, are effective in characterizing individual eye movement patterns in simulated scotoma participants. The ability to describe differences in compensatory strategies in MD represents a crucial step towards individualized rehabilitative strategies, which could be further improved by accelerating PRL development. However, it is unclear whether these results can be reproduced in those with MD. It has been suggested that the visible, sharp-edged occluder in the gaze- contingent displays increases scotoma awareness, thus accelerating PRL development. Many MD patients are unaware of the location of their scotoma, with some persisting to use their damaged fovea as a fixation spot. No study to date has translated the use of a simulated scotoma to promote rapid PRL development in MD patients. As a first step towards addressing individual differences in patients and examine whether Vision Science paradigms can be used as a rehabilitative tool in MD, we propose two Aims: In Aim 1 we will use a set of oculomotor metrics to characterize individual profiles of compensation. In Aim 2 we will test the effectiveness of the visible, simulated scotoma as a technique to promote the rapid development of a PRL. Patients will undergo a 'scotoma awareness' training, in which a simulated scotoma, individually tailored for each patient, will be used to help them visualize their region of vision loss. Patients will be tested on the same metrics from Aim 1 and a battery of visual and cognitive assessments before and after the 'scotoma awareness' (or control) sessions. This will enable quantification of the effect of scotoma awareness both in terms of visual abilities and oculomotor strategies, and test the hypothesis that awareness of the location and extent of retinal damage promotes fast PRL development. While challenging, the use of eye tracking techniques in patients could be highly rewarding if this scotoma awareness procedure proves to be effective. A null result would be equally informative, suggesting fundamental differences between physiological and simulated scotomas, thus providing a limit in the use of simulations of retinal damage as a framework for the study of retinal pathologies such as MD. This will provide a unique data set to help those developing interventions for central vision loss understand how approaches to visual rehabilitation, and individual differences, give rise to training outcomes.

02

Conditions studied

  • Macular Degeneration
  • Central Visual Impairment

Keywords

  • plasticity
  • central vision loss
03

In context

Macular Degeneration

1,459 studies on the registry are indexed under Macular Degeneration; 238 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 21 is below the median of 56 across 985 interventional studies indexed under Macular Degeneration.

Browse Macular Degeneration studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Alabama at Birmingham is the lead sponsor of 1,421 studies on the registry; 277 are open to participants now.

Of its 164 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 130 (79%) have results posted.

Browse University of Alabama at Birmingham studies →

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 89 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Severely impaired vision in both eyes (20/100 or worse)
  • Diagnosis of Macular Degeneration
  • Light sensitivity in the macular retina that is at least 10 dB units worse than in peripheral regions, as demonstrated by a scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO, MAIA)
  • Medical record review indicates this disease severity level has been present for at least 2 years.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Inability to sit still in eye tracker for extended periods
  • Inability to visualize iris on video eye tracker
  • Bilateral retinal scotomas larger than 20° diameter
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Basic science
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
21 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Condition 1 - 'Scotoma awareness' Training

    Participants will be asked to report the emotion of an emoji face ('happy' vs 'sad') that could appear anywhere on screen. For the entire duration of the training, an explicit, sharp outlined occluder surrounding the participant's true retinal scotoma will be rendered on screen. This occluder will be generated through a gaze-contingent display. The size and the contrast of the target will change adaptively in response to the patient's performance.

    Behavioral: 'Scotoma awareness' Training

  • Experimental
    Condition 2 - Control Training

    In the control condition, participants will perform the same task as the scotoma awareness training, without the artificial visible scotoma.

    Behavioral: Control Training

Interventions

  • Behavioral'Scotoma awareness' Training

    In the 'scotoma awareness' training, patients will perform visual search and orientation discrimination tasks while an opaque occluder, custom-tailored to overlap each patient's retinal scotoma, is constantly presented on the computer screen.

  • BehavioralControl Training

    The task will be performed in the control group without the visible scotoma.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change From Baseline Fixation Stability After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

    Dispersion of fixation locations averaged across trials in which the participant used their PRL (expressed as the Bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA) of the dispersion of fixation locations).

    Time frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average

  2. Change From Baseline Visual Acuity After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

    Score of Change in baseline visual acuity, in logMAR units after training. Measured as post-test minus pre-test.

    Time frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average

  3. Change From Baseline Saccadic Re-referencing After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

    Proportion of trials with first fixation using PRL (expressed as a % of the total number of trials). Expressed as post-test minus pre-test.

    Time frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change From Baseline First Saccade Landing Dispersion After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

    The dispersion of the end point of the first saccade (expressed as the Bivariate contour ellipse area, BCEA of the dispersion). BCEA is the area (in deg\^2) of an ellipse encompassing the fixation points, as described by Crossland et al., 2011.

    Time frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average

  2. Change From Baseline Latency of Target Acquisition After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

    The mean time until target is visible outside scotoma (expressed in seconds).

    Time frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average

  3. Change From Baseline Saccadic Precision After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

    The dispersion of the end point of the saccade that puts the target outside scotoma (expressed as the BCEA of the dispersion).

    Time frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average

  4. Change From Baseline Percentage of Trials That Are Useful After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

    How often participants place the target outside of the scotoma (% of dots in Saccadic precision relative to total trials). Definition of "trials that are useful" is that the target is placed outside the scotoma at some point during the trial.

    Time frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average

  5. Change From Baseline Minimal Print Size From MNREAD Task After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

    For the MNREAD test we will primarily rely upon minimal print size (a secondary measure of acuity). MNREAD is a computerized version of the task from Mansfield et al., 1993 from Gordon Legge's lab. Participants perform the task without any simulated scotoma. Sentences are shown to participants in a standardized order, from largest to smallest. The words are read out loud. The task stops when the participant can no longer read the sentence. The number of sentences is thus a measure of how small the print can be for a participant to read it effectively. Larger number of sentences is a better minimal print size. Thus we expect that effective training will result in greater values at post-test than at baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average

  6. Change From Baseline Time-to-complete Trailmaking B Subtest After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

    We will look at time-to-complete the Trail Making B subtest, measured in seconds. Post-test minus baseline. Trailmaking B test is often thought of as a measure of executive function. The task requires ordering numbers and letters, and switching between them (e.g., Find 1, then A, then 2, then B, then 3... etc.).

    Time frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average

  7. Change From Baseline Contrast Sensitivity After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

    Measured via Robson-Pelli charts. Contrast sensitivity is a measure of what visual contrast the participant can detect. This outcome is in units of log contrast sensitivity

    Time frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average

07

Results

Posted Sep 29, 2026
Limitations and caveats
Scotoma size and participants' task performance vary widely across populations of people with central vision loss. Group sizes were relatively small.

Participant flow

We recruited people with macular degeneration who met our strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. These included participants aged 18-89 with 20/100 or worse vision, an MD dx, at least 2 years of history of MD, capability to see well enough to perform a microperimetry evaluation using a MAIA. Exclusion criteria: hearing impaired, previous serious head injury, neurological disorder, hallucinations/delusions.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneSimulated ScotomaNo Simulated Scotoma.
Started86
Completed75
Not completed11
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject11

Outcome measures

PrimaryChange From Baseline Fixation Stability After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

Dispersion of fixation locations averaged across trials in which the participant used their PRL (expressed as the Bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA) of the dispersion of fixation locations).

Time frame:
Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
Reported as:
Mean · Bivariate contour ellipse area (deg^2)
Change From Baseline Fixation Stability After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks
Bivariate contour ellipse area (deg^2)Simulated ScotomaNo Simulated Scotoma
Posttest - Baseline2.737921593 ± 5.7993427923.510922586 ± 15.55387014
follow up - Baseline15.5 ± 8.49—
PrimaryChange From Baseline Visual Acuity After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

Score of Change in baseline visual acuity, in logMAR units after training. Measured as post-test minus pre-test.

Time frame:
Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
Reported as:
Mean · Acuity change (difference of logMAR)
Change From Baseline Visual Acuity After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks
Acuity change (difference of logMAR)Simulated ScotomaNo Simulated Scotoma.
Posttest - Baseline-0.101956375 ± 0.0829368610.029403725 ± 0.096555141
follow up - Baseline-0.060662638 ± 0.0900034090 ± 0.141421356
PrimaryChange From Baseline Saccadic Re-referencing After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

Proportion of trials with first fixation using PRL (expressed as a % of the total number of trials). Expressed as post-test minus pre-test.

Time frame:
Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
Reported as:
Mean · Percent
Change From Baseline Saccadic Re-referencing After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks
PercentSimulated ScotomaNo Simulated Scotoma.
Posttest - Baseline-10.36 ± 31.2-4.5 ± 23.46
follow up - Baseline3.28 ± 54—
SecondaryChange From Baseline First Saccade Landing Dispersion After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

The dispersion of the end point of the first saccade (expressed as the Bivariate contour ellipse area, BCEA of the dispersion). BCEA is the area (in deg\^2) of an ellipse encompassing the fixation points, as described by Crossland et al., 2011.

Time frame:
Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
Reported as:
Mean · degree^2
Change From Baseline First Saccade Landing Dispersion After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks
degree^2Simulated ScotomaNo Simulated Scotoma.
Posttest - Baseline-7.8 ± 40.2-23.6 ± 22.9
follow up - Baseline-7.9 ± 103—
SecondaryChange From Baseline Latency of Target Acquisition After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

The mean time until target is visible outside scotoma (expressed in seconds).

Time frame:
Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
Reported as:
Mean · seconds
Change From Baseline Latency of Target Acquisition After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks
secondsSimulated ScotomaNo Simulated Scotoma.
Posttest - Baseline.30 ± .79.71 ± 1.13
follow up - Baseline-.0588 ± 0.69—
SecondaryChange From Baseline Saccadic Precision After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

The dispersion of the end point of the saccade that puts the target outside scotoma (expressed as the BCEA of the dispersion).

Time frame:
Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
Reported as:
Mean · degree^2
Change From Baseline Saccadic Precision After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks
degree^2Simulated ScotomaNo Simulated Scotoma.
Posttest - Baseline16.8 ± 60.0-8.56 ± 47.91
follow up - Baseline60.52 ± 65—
SecondaryChange From Baseline Percentage of Trials That Are Useful After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

How often participants place the target outside of the scotoma (% of dots in Saccadic precision relative to total trials). Definition of "trials that are useful" is that the target is placed outside the scotoma at some point during the trial.

Time frame:
Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
Reported as:
Mean · Percent
Change From Baseline Percentage of Trials That Are Useful After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks
PercentSimulated ScotomaNo Simulated Scotoma.
Posttest - Baseline-2.5 ± 23-18.75 ± 39.0
follow up - Baseline-25.58 ± 27.69—
SecondaryChange From Baseline Minimal Print Size From MNREAD Task After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

For the MNREAD test we will primarily rely upon minimal print size (a secondary measure of acuity). MNREAD is a computerized version of the task from Mansfield et al., 1993 from Gordon Legge's lab. Participants perform the task without any simulated scotoma. Sentences are shown to participants in a standardized order, from largest to smallest. The words are read out loud. The task stops when the participant can no longer read the sentence. The number of sentences is thus a measure of how small the print can be for a participant to read it effectively. Larger number of sentences is a better minimal print size. Thus we expect that effective training will result in greater values at post-test than at baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
Reported as:
Mean · number of sentences read correctly
Change From Baseline Minimal Print Size From MNREAD Task After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks
number of sentences read correctlySimulated ScotomaNo Simulated Scotoma.
Posttest - Baseline0 ± 0.5770.6 ± 1.14
follow up - Baseline-.2 ± 1.481.33 ± .577
SecondaryChange From Baseline Time-to-complete Trailmaking B Subtest After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

We will look at time-to-complete the Trail Making B subtest, measured in seconds. Post-test minus baseline. Trailmaking B test is often thought of as a measure of executive function. The task requires ordering numbers and letters, and switching between them (e.g., Find 1, then A, then 2, then B, then 3... etc.).

Time frame:
Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
Reported as:
Mean · seconds
Change From Baseline Time-to-complete Trailmaking B Subtest After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks
secondsSimulated ScotomaNo Simulated Scotoma.
Posttest - Baseline-19.7 ± 208.12-66.4 ± 74.57
follow up - Baseline-23.6 ± 301.34-99.06 ± 12.77
SecondaryChange From Baseline Contrast Sensitivity After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks

Measured via Robson-Pelli charts. Contrast sensitivity is a measure of what visual contrast the participant can detect. This outcome is in units of log contrast sensitivity

Time frame:
Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
Reported as:
Mean · log contrast sensitivity.
Change From Baseline Contrast Sensitivity After Completion of Training at Approximately 6 Weeks and 14 Weeks
log contrast sensitivity.Condition 1 - 'Scotoma Awareness' TrainingCondition 2 - Control Training
Posttest - Baseline.003 ± .17-.017 ± .14
follow up - Baseline0.0388 ± 0.1526-0.0133 ± 0.18

Adverse events

Collected over from enrollment until end of follow-up, up to 24 weeks. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Condition 1 - 'Scotoma Awareness' Training0/8 (0%)0/8 (0%)0/8 (0%)
Condition 2 - Control Training0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

7 Participants dropped from the study prior to completing baseline measures; this is why the number of baseline participants (14) is smaller than the number in Participant Flow (21).

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Simulated ScotomaNo Simulated ScotomaTotal
<=18 years000
Between 18 and 65 years101
>=65 years7613
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Simulated ScotomaNo Simulated ScotomaTotal
Female213
Male6511
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Simulated ScotomaNo Simulated ScotomaTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native000
Asian000
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000
Black or African American101
White7613
More than one race000
Unknown or Not Reported000
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Simulated ScotomaNo Simulated ScotomaTotal
Hispanic or Latino000
Not Hispanic or Latino8614
Unknown or Not Reported000
08

Study locations

1 site
  • UAB
    Birmingham, Alabama 35294, United States
09

References and documents

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — Results of the project will be submitted to the relevant repository (ClinicalTrials.gov, or Open-Science Framework) within one year of the final participant completing data collection. We expect to report participant flow by group (intervention or control), participant demographics and other baseline characteristics, outcome measures and statistical analyses, adverse events (if applicable), and limitations or caveats of our results. We also will ensure that the final protocol and statistical analysis plan are uploaded to the record.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Analytic code

Time frame: Results of the project will be submitted to the relevant repository (ClinicalTrials.gov, or Open-Science Framework) within one year of the final participant completing data collection.

10

Timeline

1 registry update since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from Nov 2022 to primary completion in Jun 2025, 31 months.

Results were first posted in Sep 2026, 1 year 3 months after primary completion.

Of 104 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Macular Degeneration, half reached primary completion within 41 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 17 and three quarters within 56. This study's 31 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 132 studies reached it within 37 months; a quarter within 17 and three quarters within 60.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jul 7, 2022
First posted
Jul 13, 2022
StartActual
Nov 1, 2022
Primary completionActual
Jun 4, 2025
CompletionActual
Jun 30, 2025
Results first posted
Sep 29, 2026
Last update
Sep 29, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
Results
Results posted
posted Sep 29, 2026
Primary outcomes
3 edited
What changed in the outcomes
  • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Visual Acuity after completionFixation Stability After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
  • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Fixation stability after completionVisual Acuity After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
  • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Saccadic reRe-referencing after completionAfter Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
Sep 29, 2026
Documents
Sep 29, 2026
Secondary outcomes
7 edited
What changed in the outcomes
  • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline First saccade landing dispersion after completionSaccade Landing Dispersion After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
  • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Latency of target acquisition after completionTarget Acquisition After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
  • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Saccadic precision after completionPrecision After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
  • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Percentage of trials that are useful after completionTrials That Are Useful After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
  • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Minimal print size fromPrint Size From MNREAD task after completionTask After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
  • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline timeTime-to-complete Trailmaking B subtest after completionSubtest After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
  • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Contrast Sensitivity after completionAfter Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
Sep 29, 2026
Sponsor
Collaborators added: National Eye Institute (NEI)
Sep 29, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Sep 29, 2026
    Results posted
    Documents Study protocol ↗ posted · Statistical analysis plan ↗ posted · Informed consent form ↗ posted
    Primary outcomes 3 edited
    What changed in the outcomes
    • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Visual Acuity after completionFixation Stability After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
    • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Fixation stability after completionVisual Acuity After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
    • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Saccadic reRe-referencing after completionAfter Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
    Secondary outcomes 7 edited
    What changed in the outcomes
    • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline First saccade landing dispersion after completionSaccade Landing Dispersion After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
    • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Latency of target acquisition after completionTarget Acquisition After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
    • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Saccadic precision after completionPrecision After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
    • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Percentage of trials that are useful after completionTrials That Are Useful After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
    • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Minimal print size fromPrint Size From MNREAD task after completionTask After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
    • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline timeTime-to-complete Trailmaking B subtest after completionSubtest After Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
    • EditedChange fromFrom Baseline Contrast Sensitivity after completionAfter Completion of Training at approximatelyApproximately 6 weeksWeeks and 14 weeksWeeksTime frame: Baseline, after training completion, training is complete 6 weeks from baseline on average, and at follow up, 14 weeks from baseline on average
    Sponsor Collaborators added: National Eye Institute (NEI)
    + 4 other changes: identifiers, verification date, index terms and registry notes

From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05456581
Lead sponsor
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Collaborators
University of California, Riverside, National Eye Institute (NEI)
Responsible party
Kristina M Visscher (Associate Professor, University of Alabama at Birmingham) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jul 13, 2022
Start date
Nov 1, 2022
Primary completion
Jun 4, 2025
Completion
Jun 30, 2025
Results posted
Sep 29, 2026
Last update
Sep 29, 2026

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Other studies in this condition

Macular Degeneration →

Other studies from this sponsor

University of Alabama at Birmingham →

Start the discussion