{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022338049143708117, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010424422933730455, 'mean_word_length': 4.843478260869565, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Visual-field measurements and driving eligibility.

BACKGROUND
A 50-year-old black man with an ocular history of open-angle glaucoma was seen for a vision rehabilitation examination, with goals of improving his vision for work and determining his eligibility for driving. He was referred to the clinic through state services for the visually impaired.


METHODS
A low-vision evaluation was performed and baseline information was obtained, including distance- and near-visual acuities, visual fields, and subjective refraction. This information was used to determine if he was eligible for services and if any low-vision devices would benefit him.


RESULTS
The patient demonstrated moderately decreased visual acuity in the right eye (6/15) and very reduced visual acuity in the left eye (6/120). His visual fields varied depending on the test performed, ranging from 85 degrees to 140 degrees horizontal diameter. He was able to remove his spectacles and perform near tasks quite well.


CONCLUSIONS
The patient was counseled that if he used one of the field tests he could qualify for services, but if he chose the other test he would qualify for driving and not qualify for services. The ramifications of using different field tests and understanding their parameters when assessing eligibility for services and benefits can be significant.