Dataset Information

Reading Acuity as a Predictor of Low-Vision Reading Performance.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Most people with low vision experience difficulty with reading. Reading assessment can provide guidance for prescription of reading aids and strategies for reading rehabilitation. Here we investigate the effectiveness of letter acuity (LA) and reading acuity (RA) as predictors of low-vision reading performance.

Methods

Low-vision subjects (n = 58), young control subjects (n = 52), and older control subjects (n = 14) participated in this study. The low-vision subjects were separated into a Macular group (n = 30) and a Nonmacular group (n = 28) based on whether the diagnoses primarily affected the macular area. LA was measured with the Lighthouse Distance Visual Acuity Chart and RA with the MNREAD Acuity Chart. Reading speeds were obtained across a range of print sizes from the MNREAD test. The MNREAD data were used to estimate required print sizes for three functionally important types of reading for each subject: spot reading (40 words/min [wpm]), fluent reading (80 wpm), and critical print size (required to achieve maximum reading speed).

Results

For equal values of LA, the Macular group had significantly worse RA than the Nonmacular group. The differences between vision groups, as well as individual variations within groups, were largely explained by the differences in RA. RA is a better predictor than LA for spot reading size, fluent reading size, and critical print size.

Conclusions

RA may provide more accurate assessment of reading performance than LA for purposes of low-vision reading rehabilitation.

SUBMITTER: Xiong YZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6181187 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reading Acuity as a Predictor of Low-Vision Reading Performance.

Xiong Ying-Zi YZ Calabrèse Aurélie A Cheong Allen M Y AMY Legge Gordon E GE

Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 20181001 12

<h4>Purpose</h4>Most people with low vision experience difficulty with reading. Reading assessment can provide guidance for prescription of reading aids and strategies for reading rehabilitation. Here we investigate the effectiveness of letter acuity (LA) and reading acuity (RA) as predictors of low-vision reading performance.<h4>Methods</h4>Low-vision subjects (n = 58), young control subjects (n = 52), and older control subjects (n = 14) participated in this study. The low-vision subjects were ...[more]

PMID: 30347073

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeLow vision reduces text visibility and causes difficulties in reading. A valid low-vision simulation could be used to evaluate the accessibility of digital text for readers with low vision. We examined the validity of a digital simulation for replicating the text visibility and reading performance of low-vision individuals.MethodsLow-vision visibility was modeled with contrast sensitivity functions (CSFs) with parameters to represent reduced acuity and contrast sensitivity. Digital filtering incorporating these CSFs were applied to digital versions of the Lighthouse Letter Acuity Chart and the Pelli-Robson Contrast Sensitivity Chart. Reading performance (reading acuity, critical print size, and maximum reading speed) was assessed with filtered versions of the MNREAD reading acuity Chart. Thirty-six normally sighted young adults completed chart testing under normal and simulated low-vision conditions. Fifty-eight low-vision subjects (thirty with macular pathology and twenty-eight with non-macular pathology) and fifteen normally sighted older subjects completed chart testing with their habitual viewing. We hypothesized that the performance of the normally sighted young adults under simulated low-vision conditions would match the corresponding performance of actual low-vision subjects.ResultsWhen simulating low-vision conditions with visual acuity better than 1.50 logMAR (Snellen 20/630) and contrast sensitivity better than 0.15 log unit, the simulation adequately reduced the acuity and contrast sensitivity in normally sighted young subjects to the desired low-vision levels. When performing the MNREAD test with simulated low vision, the normally sighted young adults had faster maximum reading speed than both the Non-macular and Macular groups, by an average of 0.07 and 0.12 log word per minute, respectively. However, they adequately replicated the reading acuity as well as the critical print size, up to 2.00 logMAR of both low-vision groups.ConclusionA low-vision simulation based on clinical measures of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity can provide good estimates of reading performance and the accessibility of digital text for a broad range of low-vision conditions.

Project description:BackgroundMNREAD is an advanced near-vision acuity chart that has already been translated and validated in Greek language. Considering that no validated Greek digital near-vision test exists, our primary objective was to develop and validate a digital near-vision reading test based on the fundamental properties of the Greek printed MNREAD (MNREAD-GR).MethodsThis is a prospective, comparative study. A digital near-vision chart was developed (Democritus Digital Acuity Reading Test - DDART) with text size calibration, audio recording for automatic reading timing, as well as automatic calculation of reading acuity (RA), maximum reading speed (MRS), critical print size (CPS) and reading accessibility index (ACC). Normal and low vision subjects participated in the validation process, responding to MNREAD-GR and DDART at the same day, at a 40?cm viewing distance. Differences in all parameters between the charts were compared with t-test and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Within 15?days, all participants responded again to DDART in a different set of sentences to assess its test-retest reliability.ResultsOne hundred patients (normal vision group - NVG: 70 patients; low vision group - LVG: 30 patients) responded to both reading tests. Non-significant differences were detected for all parameters between DDART and MNREAD-GR except for MRS and ACC that were significantly higher in MNREAD-GR in NVG (p?<? 0.01). NVG participants demonstrated sufficient ICCs that ranged from 0.854 to 0.963, while LVG demonstrated ICCs for RA, ACC, MRS and CPS equal to 0.986, 0.894, 0.794 and 0.723, respectively. All parameters calculated with DDART demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (ICCs: 0.903 - 0.956).ConclusionsThe proposed reading test presented comparable validity and repeatability to MNREAD-GR suggesting that it can be used both in normal and low vision Greek patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04242836. Registered 24 January 2020 - Retrospectively registered.

Project description:ImportanceThere is substantial socioeconomic and individual burden from uncorrected refractive error (URE) and chronic ocular disease. Understanding the association of visual acuity (VA) reduction with URE and the adults most likely to benefit from refraction may help support clinical decision-making in ophthalmologic care and maximize patient outcomes.ObjectivesTo assess the magnitude of VA improvement associated with URE among adults under ophthalmic care who obtain low vision rehabilitation (LVR) services and identify the characteristics of the patients who are most likely to experience improvement.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective case series assessed patients 20 years or older who were new to the LVR clinics from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015, and who had habitual VA between 20/40 and counting fingers (not including) and underwent refraction. Data analysis was performed from April 4, 2018, to December 20, 2019.ExposuresPatient demographics and clinical data, including habitual and refraction VA, refraction, and disease diagnosis. Habitual VA was categorized as mild (VA worse than 20/40 and at least 20/60), moderate (VA worse than 20/60 and better than 20/200), severe (VA 20/200 or worse and better than 20/500), and profound (VA 20/500 or worse) vision impairment (VI).Main outcomes and measuresAt least 2-line VA improvement and any VA improvement (≥1-line) by refraction.ResultsAmong the 2923 patients new to LVR clinics, 1773 (mean [SD] age, 70 [18.2] years; 1069 [60.3%] female) were included in these analyses. The mean habitual VA was 20/100 (mean [SD], 0.67 [0.36] logMAR). At least 2-line improvement was observed in 493 patients (27.8%), and any VA improvement was seen in 1023 patients (57.7%). At least 2-line improvement was observed in 54 patients (34.8%) with corneal disorders and was more likely seen among patients aged 40 to <65 years compared with those aged 20 to <40 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.41), African American patients compared with white patients (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.85), or patients with moderate VI compared with mild VI (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.72).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that URE is prevalent among patients with ocular disease and accessing LVR and that refractive evaluation should be considered for patients with ocular disease and reduced VA, especially working-age adults aged 40 to <65 years, African American patients, and those with moderate VI.

Project description:SignificanceThis pilot study provides some insight about the potential benefits of telerehabilitation training to improve the reading ability of adults with low vision using magnifiers, to spur future work with larger groups. Telerehabilitation services can be implemented clinically to facilitate access to follow-up care for low vision.PurposeA recent Cochrane systematic review revealed that there are no published visual function outcomes for telerehabilitation with handheld magnification devices for low vision; thus, this study aimed to provide evidence for its preliminary efficacy.MethodsOne to 4 months after receiving a new magnification device (i.e., handheld or stand optical magnifier or portable electronic magnifier), 14 adult low vision patients (with any visual acuity level or ocular diagnosis) received two training sessions at home via telerehabilitation with their vision rehabilitation provider located remotely in-office. Telerehabilitation included a loaner smartphone for Zoom videoconferencing with remote control access software. The Minnesota Low-Vision Reading Test was administered during each of the telerehabilitation sessions to assess near reading (acuity and speed) with the new magnifier.ResultsMean reading acuity with the magnifier was 0.17 logMAR across subjects before training at telerehabilitation session 1, which significantly improved to 0.09 on average a few weeks later at telerehabilitation session 2 (95%confidence interval, -0.001 to -0.16; P = .047). Logarithm reading speed with the magnifier for the reading acuity level at session 1 improved significantly by 0.18 log words per minute on average for the same text size at session 2 (95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.29; P = .002). With the magnifier at session 2, 71% of participants gained at least 0.1 log unit in reading acuity, and half improved by >0.01 in log reading speed; all participants with increased reading speed also improved in reading acuity ( P = .02).ConclusionsThese preliminary data support that telerehabilitation can enhance reading ability and efficiency with newly prescribed magnifiers as an alternative option to in-office vision rehabilitation.

Dataset Information

Reading Acuity as a Predictor of Low-Vision Reading Performance.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Reading Acuity as a Predictor of Low-Vision Reading Performance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets