Dataset Information

Online Survey of Digital Reading by Adults with Low Vision.

ABSTRACT:

Significance

Access to digital text is increasingly widespread, but its impact on low-vision reading is not well understood.

Purpose

We conducted an online survey of people with low vision to determine what assistive technologies they use for visual reading, their preferred text characteristics, and the time they devote to reading digital and hard-copy text.

Methods

One hundred thirty-three low-vision participants completed an online survey. Participants reported the nature and history of their low vision, their usage of different assistive technologies, and time devoted to five visual reading activities.

Results

The three largest diagnostic categories were albinism (n = 36), retinitis pigmentosa (n = 20), and glaucoma (n = 15). Mean self-reported acuity was 0.93 logMAR (range, 0.1 to 1.6 logMAR). Mean age was 46 years (range, 18 to 98 years). Participants reported on percentage time spent reading using vision, audio, or touch (braille). Seventy-five percent of our participants did more than 50% of their reading visually. Across five categories of reading activities-work or education, news, pleasure, spot reading, and social networking-participants reported more time spent on digital reading than hard-copy reading. Eighty-nine percent of our participants used at least one technology from each of our two major categories of assistive technologies (digital content magnifiers and hard-copy content magnifiers) for visual reading.

Conclusions

Despite the growing availability of digital text in audio or braille formats, our findings from an online sample of people with low vision indicate the continuing importance of visual reading. Our participants continue to use technology to access both hard-copy and digital text, but more time is devoted to digital reading. Our findings highlight the need for continued research and development of technology to enhance visual reading accessibility.

SUBMITTER: Wu YH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7172011 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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: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.