Cargando…

Reading Acuity as a Predictor of Low-Vision Reading Performance

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xiong, Ying-Zi, Calabrèse, Aurélie, Cheong, Allen M. Y., Legge, Gordon E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6181187/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30347073
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.18-24716
_version_ 1783362349063733248
author Xiong, Ying-Zi
Calabrèse, Aurélie
Cheong, Allen M. Y.
Legge, Gordon E.
author_facet Xiong, Ying-Zi
Calabrèse, Aurélie
Cheong, Allen M. Y.
Legge, Gordon E.
author_sort Xiong, Ying-Zi
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6181187
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61811872018-10-15 Reading Acuity as a Predictor of Low-Vision Reading Performance Xiong, Ying-Zi Calabrèse, Aurélie Cheong, Allen M. Y. Legge, Gordon E. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Low Vision 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. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2018-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6181187/ /pubmed/30347073 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.18-24716 Text en Copyright 2018 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Low Vision
Xiong, Ying-Zi
Calabrèse, Aurélie
Cheong, Allen M. Y.
Legge, Gordon E.
Reading Acuity as a Predictor of Low-Vision Reading Performance
title Reading Acuity as a Predictor of Low-Vision Reading Performance
title_full Reading Acuity as a Predictor of Low-Vision Reading Performance
title_fullStr Reading Acuity as a Predictor of Low-Vision Reading Performance
title_full_unstemmed Reading Acuity as a Predictor of Low-Vision Reading Performance
title_short Reading Acuity as a Predictor of Low-Vision Reading Performance
title_sort reading acuity as a predictor of low-vision reading performance
topic Low Vision
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6181187/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30347073
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.18-24716
work_keys_str_mv AT xiongyingzi readingacuityasapredictoroflowvisionreadingperformance
AT calabreseaurelie readingacuityasapredictoroflowvisionreadingperformance
AT cheongallenmy readingacuityasapredictoroflowvisionreadingperformance
AT leggegordone readingacuityasapredictoroflowvisionreadingperformance