ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07185971Updated Apr 2, 2026

PAVE (Parallactic Visual-Field Enhancement) System for Treatment of Chronic Visual Field Loss Due to Stroke, Traumatic Brain Injury, or Brain Surgery

An interventional study of PAVE (Parallactic Visual-Field Enhancement) treatment using a virtual reality head mounted display in Homonymous Hemianopsia and Homonymous Quadrantanopia, sponsored by NeuroAEye LLC. Recruiting at 2 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 21 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-04-02.

Sponsored by NeuroAEye LLC · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by Jul 2026, 4 months ago, but the record still lists the study as recruiting.
  • Started Mar 2026; still recruiting 7 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
20
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
21 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This is a research study to evaluate the effectiveness of the PAVE (Parallactic Visual-Field Enhancement) System for the treatment of chronic visual field loss due to stroke, traumatic brain injury, or brain surgery. The PAVE regimen involves the use of a virtual reality headset to deliver visual stimulation to subjects diagnosed with visual field loss.

The primary objective is to demonstrate that there is an improvement in the visual field after use of the PAVE therapy over a period of eight weeks with three sessions per week. The primary outcome is an increase in visual field area as measured with Goldmann-type kinetic perimetry.

The secondary outcome will be demonstration that the subjective assessment of visual function using the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ) is better after PAVE therapy when compared to before therapy.

The participants will visit the investigators office at the start of the study to establish a baseline for visual field size and visual field function. The subject will use PAVE in the office or at home three times per week for eight weeks. There will be twenty four therapy sessions in total. At four weeks the subject will visit the office and have perimetry measurements. At eight weeks the subject will visit the office and have perimetry measurements and complete the NEI-VFQ survey. Four weeks after the completion of the therapy sessions a follow up visit will take place where visual field measurement using kinetic perimetry and NEI-VFQ will be administered.

Read the detailed description

This clinical investigation will focus on patients with chronic visual field loss following a cerebrovascular accident (CVA), a traumatic brain injury (TBI), or surgery of the brain. The CVA and TBI and some surgeries of the brain may affect bilateral visual fields (homonymous hemianopia, quadrantanopia, or general constriction). While perimetric visual field improvements can occur spontaneously in the first few months after brain injury, after six months the condition is considered chronic and permanent .

This study will include patients at least 6 months after the brain injury event and up to ten years after onset. If available for the study, patients suffering field loss as a result of brain surgery may also be enrolled. All patients shall have a definitive diagnosis of homonymous hemianopia, quadrantanopia, or general constriction. The patients shall have the ability to wear the virtual reality head mounted display HMD for a 30-minute session performed in the clinic at least once per week. Patients will be between 21 and 80 years of age. The clinical study shall be comprised of a single arm with all subjects receiving therapy with the PAVE software on the HMD. The initial sample size will be a minimum of fifteen. Performance will be evaluated using a semiautomated kinetic perimeter (SKP) measurement derived from the Goldmann method.

The goal will be to determine the amount of statistically significant improvement of the visual field for the subjects. Additional endpoints will include the percentage of subjects showing improvement and subjective assessment of the subject's visual performance using the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ).

02

Conditions studied

  • Homonymous Hemianopsia
  • Homonymous Quadrantanopia

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • PAVE
  • Parallactic Visual-Field Enhancement
  • NeuroAEye
  • chronic visual field loss
03

In context

Hemianopsia

63 studies on the registry are indexed under Hemianopsia; 24 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 20 is below the median of 32 across 53 interventional studies indexed under Hemianopsia.

Browse Hemianopsia studies →

Lead sponsor

This is the only study on the registry with NeuroAEye LLC as lead sponsor.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
21 Years to 80 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

  • This study will include patients at least 6 months after the CVA or TBI or brain surgery event and up to ten (10) years after onset
  • The patients shall have a definitive diagnosis of homonymous hemianopia or quadrantanopia or generalized constriction.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Presence of any physical, neurological, or mental disability that would interfere with receiving the therapy.
  • Concurrent use of another visual therapy
  • Concurrent use of medications judged to affect training (amphetamines, dopamine, etc.)
  • Presence of ocular or neurological conditions that would interfere with training or cause a visual impairment including no residual vision, disorders of the eye, non-optic nerve heteronymous visual field defects
  • Insufficient fixation ability
  • Use of life supporting external medical device such as infusion pumps, ventricular assist devices, etc.
  • Presence of active implantable medical device including but not limited to cardiac pacemakers, defibrillators, nerve stimulators, cochlear implants, etc.
  • Subjects with known photosensitive epilepsy.
  • Subjects with chronic active infections on the head and face should be excluded from the study
  • Patients with known immune disorders for whom an infection could be life threatening should be excluded from the study.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
20 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Test

    Treatment using actual PAVE therapy software operating on a virtual reality head mounted display three times per week for eight weeks.

    Device: PAVE (Parallactic Visual-Field Enhancement) treatment using a virtual reality head mounted display

Interventions

  • DevicePAVE (Parallactic Visual-Field Enhancement) treatment using a virtual reality head mounted display

    PAVE (Parallactic Visual-Field Enhancement) treatment is visual stimulation using a virtual reality head mounted display. The treatment is three times per week and entails two 7 minute sessions separated by a minimum 1 minute intermission. The actual therapy is preceded by a visual field assessment and is followed by a second visual field assessment.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Population Mean Change in Visual Field Area

    The visual field area is derived from the isopter plot output of semiautomated kinetic perimetry. A baseline visual field area will be taken and subsequent measurements will be compared to the baseline.

    Time frame: Visual field area will be assessed at the baseline, week 4, week 8, and follow up at week 12.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Proportion of subjects showing improvement.

    The percentage of the subjects that demonstrates improvement when compared to the mean change in field of view area for the control group.

    Time frame: The proportion of the subjects showing improvement will be assessed at week 4, week 8, and at the follow up at week 12.

Other outcomes

  1. Change in Subjective Visual Function

    Use of NEI-VFQ to survey subjects at baseline and intermediate endpoints with regard to their assessment of visual function. Compare baseline and final assessments.

    Time frame: NEI-VFQ will be administered at baseline, at week 8, again at the 4 week post-treatment follow up which is week 12.

07

Study locations

2 of 2 sites recruiting
  • Dr. D. M. Fitzgerald & Associates
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404, United States
    Recruiting
  • Neuro-Vision Associates of North Texas
    Prospect, Kentucky 40059, United States
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Zahid S, Peeler C, Khan N, Davis J, Mahmood M, Heckenlively JR, Jayasundera T. Digital quantification of Goldmann visual fields (GVFs) as a means for genotype-phenotype comparisons and detection of progression in retinal degenerations. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2014;801:131-7. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3209-8_17. PubMed 24664690 ↗
  • Pe'er J, Zajicek G, Barzel I. Computerised evaluation of visual fields. Br J Ophthalmol. 1983 Jan;67(1):50-3. doi: 10.1136/bjo.67.1.50. No abstract available. PubMed 6848135 ↗
  • Barry MP, Bittner AK, Yang L, Marcus R, Iftikhar MH, Dagnelie G. Variability and Errors of Manually Digitized Goldmann Visual Fields. Optom Vis Sci. 2016 Jul;93(7):720-30. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000869. PubMed 27058594 ↗
  • Christoforidis JB. Volume of visual field assessed with kinetic perimetry and its application to static perimetry. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:535-41. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S18815. Epub 2011 Apr 26. PubMed 21573042 ↗
  • Bittner AK, Iftikhar MH, Dagnelie G. Test-retest, within-visit variability of Goldmann visual fields in retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Oct 11;52(11):8042-6. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-8321. PubMed 21896857 ↗
  • Rowe FJ, Hepworth LR, Hanna KL, Mistry M, Noonan CP. Accuracy of kinetic perimetry assessment with the Humphrey 850; an exploratory comparative study. Eye (Lond). 2019 Dec;33(12):1952-1960. doi: 10.1038/s41433-019-0520-1. Epub 2019 Jul 22. PubMed 31332292 ↗
  • Barnes CS, Schuchard RA, Birch DG, Dagnelie G, Wood L, Koenekoop RK, Bittner AK. Reliability of Semiautomated Kinetic Perimetry (SKP) and Goldmann Kinetic Perimetry in Children and Adults With Retinal Dystrophies. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2019 Jun 11;8(3):36. doi: 10.1167/tvst.8.3.36. eCollection 2019 May. PubMed 31211001 ↗
  • Goodwin D. Homonymous hemianopia: challenges and solutions. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014 Sep 22;8:1919-27. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S59452. eCollection 2014. PubMed 25284978 ↗
  • Grunda T, Marsalek P, Sykorova P. Homonymous hemianopia and related visual defects: Restoration of vision after a stroke. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2013;73(2):237-49. doi: 10.55782/ane-2013-1933. PubMed 23823985 ↗
  • Bouwmeester L, Heutink J, Lucas C. The effect of visual training for patients with visual field defects due to brain damage: a systematic review. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007 Jun;78(6):555-64. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2006.103853. Epub 2006 Nov 29. PubMed 17135455 ↗
  • Gall C, Sabel BA. Reading performance after vision rehabilitation of subjects with homonymous visual field defects. PM R. 2012 Dec;4(12):928-35. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.08.020. Epub 2012 Nov 2. PubMed 23122896 ↗
  • Poggel DA, Mueller I, Kasten E, Bunzenthal U, Sabel BA. Subjective and objective outcome measures of computer-based vision restoration training. NeuroRehabilitation. 2010;27(2):173-87. doi: 10.3233/NRE-2010-0594. PubMed 20871147 ↗
  • Kasten E, Bunzenthal U, Sabel BA. Visual field recovery after vision restoration therapy (VRT) is independent of eye movements: an eye tracker study. Behav Brain Res. 2006 Nov 25;175(1):18-26. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2006.07.024. Epub 2006 Sep 12. PubMed 16970999 ↗
  • Mueller I, Mast H, Sabel BA. Recovery of visual field defects: a large clinical observational study using vision restoration therapy. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2007;25(5-6):563-72. PubMed 18334773 ↗
  • Gall C, Mueller I, Gudlin J, Lindig A, Schlueter D, Jobke S, Franke GH, Sabel BA. Vision- and health-related quality of life before and after vision restoration training in cerebrally damaged patients. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2008;26(4-5):341-53. PubMed 18997310 ↗
  • Poggel DA, Kasten E, Sabel BA. Attentional cueing improves vision restoration therapy in patients with visual field defects. Neurology. 2004 Dec 14;63(11):2069-76. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000145773.26378.e5. PubMed 15596752 ↗
  • I. Mueller, D. Poggel, S. Kenkel, E. Kasten and B. A. Sabel, "Vision Restoration Therapy (VRT) after brain damage: subjective improvements of activities of daily life and their relationship to visual field enlargements.," Visual Impairment Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 157-178, 2003.
  • Marshall RS, Ferrera JJ, Barnes A, Xian Zhang, O'Brien KA, Chmayssani M, Hirsch J, Lazar RM. Brain activity associated with stimulation therapy of the visual borderzone in hemianopic stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 Mar-Apr;22(2):136-44. doi: 10.1177/1545968307305522. Epub 2007 Aug 14. PubMed 17698955 ↗
  • Plow EB, Obretenova SN, Fregni F, Pascual-Leone A, Merabet LB. Comparison of visual field training for hemianopia with active versus sham transcranial direct cortical stimulation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012 Jul-Aug;26(6):616-26. doi: 10.1177/1545968311431963. Epub 2012 Jan 30. PubMed 22291042 ↗
  • Romano JG, Schulz P, Kenkel S, Todd DP. Visual field changes after a rehabilitation intervention: vision restoration therapy. J Neurol Sci. 2008 Oct 15;273(1-2):70-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2008.06.026. Epub 2008 Jul 30. PubMed 18672255 ↗
  • Julkunen L, Tenovuo O, Jaaskelainen S, Hamalainen H. Rehabilitation of chronic post-stroke visual field defect with computer-assisted training: a clinical and neurophysiological study. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2003;21(1-2):19-28. PubMed 12808199 ↗
  • Sabel BA, Kenkel S, Kasten E. Vision restoration therapy (VRT) efficacy as assessed by comparative perimetric analysis and subjective questionnaires. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22(6):399-420. PubMed 15798360 ↗
  • Kasten E, Wust S, Behrens-Baumann W, Sabel BA. Computer-based training for the treatment of partial blindness. Nat Med. 1998 Sep;4(9):1083-7. doi: 10.1038/2079. PubMed 9734406 ↗
  • Kasten E, Sabel BA. Visual field enlargement after computer training in brain-damaged patients with homonymous deficits: an open pilot trial. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 1995 Jan 1;8(3):113-27. doi: 10.3233/RNN-1995-8302. PubMed 21551894 ↗
  • W. Padula, R. Munitz and W. M. Magrun, Neuro-Visual Processing Rehabilitation, Santa Ana, CA: Optometric Extension Program Foundation, 2012.
  • R. Sanet and L. Press, "Spatial Vision," in Vision Rehabilitation: Multidisciplinary Care of the Patient Following Brain Injury, Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011, pp. 77-152.
  • Padula WV, Capo-Aponte JE, Padula WV, Singman EL, Jenness J. The consequence of spatial visual processing dysfunction caused by traumatic brain injury (TBI). Brain Inj. 2017;31(5):589-600. doi: 10.1080/02699052.2017.1291991. Epub 2017 Apr 25. PubMed 28440687 ↗
  • Saionz EL, Tadin D, Melnick MD, Huxlin KR. Functional preservation and enhanced capacity for visual restoration in subacute occipital stroke. Brain. 2020 Jun 1;143(6):1857-1872. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa128. PubMed 32428211 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Timeline

Tracking 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

Started Mar 2026 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Jul 2026, 4 months after the start.

Of 36 interventional studies with no phase under Hemianopsia, half reached primary completion within 47 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 21 and three quarters within 95. This study's planned 4 months is below that.

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

Registered
Sep 11, 2025
First posted
Sep 22, 2025
StartActual
Mar 16, 2026
Primary completionEst.
Jul 2026
CompletionEst.
Aug 2026
Last update
Apr 2, 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.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 2, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07185971
Lead sponsor
NeuroAEye LLC
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Sep 22, 2025
Start date
Mar 16, 2026
Primary completion
Jul 2026 (estimated)
Completion
Aug 2026 (estimated)
Last update
Apr 2, 2026

Study contacts

Michael Lynch, BSME
Contact
michael.lynch@neuroaeye.com
315-730-9842
Paige Clinical Study Coordinator
Contact
paige.eyecare@gmail.com
319-366-3500
DeAnn Fitzgerald, Doctor of Optometry
principal investigator · Dr. D. M. Fitzgerald & Associates

Oversight

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

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

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.

Start the discussion