ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2016
The value of Tablets as reading aids for individuals with central visual field loss: an evaluation of eccentric reading with static and scrolling text.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beneficial influence of in-context predictability when young adults read with a simulated central scotoma.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Screen Magnification for Readers with Low Vision: A Study on Usability and Performance.ASSETS. Annual ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies · 2023Article
- Measuring image distortions arising from age-related macular degeneration: An Iterative Amsler Grid (IAG).MedComm · 2022Article
- A comparison of reading, in people with simulated and actual central vision loss, with static text, horizontally scrolling text, and rapid serial visual presentation.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- What Visual Targets Are Viewed by Users With a Handheld Mobile Magnifier App.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- Temporal modulation improves dynamic peripheral acuity.Journal of vision · 2019Article
- Effectiveness of the Apple iPad as a Spot-reading Magnifier.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2018Article
- Assessment of the Apple iPad as a low-vision reading aid.Eye (London, England) · 2017Article
- The value of Tablets as reading aids for individuals with central visual field loss: an evaluation of eccentric reading with static and scrolling text.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTechnological devices such as smartphones and tablets are widely available and increasingly used as visual aids. This study evaluated the use of a novel app for tablets (MD_evReader) developed as a reading aid for individuals with a central field loss resulting from macular degeneration. The MD_evReader app scrolls text as single lines (similar to a news ticker) and is intended to enhance reading performance using the eccentric viewing technique by both reducing the demands on the eye movement system and minimising the deleterious effects of perceptual crowding. Reading performance with scrolling text was compared with reading static sentences, also presented on a tablet computer.
methodsTwenty-six people with low vision (diagnosis of macular degeneration) read static or dynamic text (scrolled from right to left), presented as a single line at high contrast on a tablet device. Reading error rates and comprehension were recorded for both text formats, and the participant's subjective experience of reading with the app was assessed using a simple questionnaire.
resultsThe average reading speed for static and dynamic text was not significantly different and equal to or greater than 85 words per minute. The comprehension scores for both text formats were also similar, equal to approximately 95% correct. However, reading error rates were significantly (p = 0.02) less for dynamic text than for static text. The participants' questionnaire ratings of their reading experience with the MD_evReader were highly positive and indicated a preference for reading with this app compared with their usual method.
conclusionsOur data show that reading performance with scrolling text is at least equal to that achieved with static text and in some respects (reading error rate) is better than static text. Bespoke apps informed by an understanding of the underlying sensorimotor processes involved in a cognitive task such as reading have excellent potential as aids for people with visual impairments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.