Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27445912›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2016

Effective and Efficient Stand Magnifier Use in Visually Impaired Children.

Joyce Liebrand-Schurink, Ralf F A Cox, Ger H M B van Rens, Antonius H N Cillessen, Ruud G J Meulenbroek, Frouke N Boonstra

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Joyce Liebrand-SchurinkBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud UniversityNijmegen, Netherlands; Bartiméus Institute for the Visually ImpairedZeist, Netherlands; Expertise Center Health, Social Care and Technology, Saxion University of Applied SciencesEnschede, Netherlands.
Ralf F A CoxDepartment of Psychology, University of Groningen Groningen, Netherlands.
Ger H M B van RensVU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Antonius H N CillessenBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Ruud G J MeulenbroekDepartment Cognitive Neuroscience, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Frouke N BoonstraBartiméus Institute for the Visually ImpairedZeist, Netherlands; Department Cognitive Neuroscience, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical CentreNijmegen, Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLBartiméus · NLSaxion University of Applied Sciences · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe main objective of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of magnifier use in children with visual impairment who did not use a low vision aid earlier, in an ecologically valid goal-directed perceptuomotor task.

methodsParticipants were twenty-nine 4- to 8-year-old children with visual impairment and 47 age-matched children with normal vision. After seeing a first symbol (an Lea Hyvärinen [LH] symbol), children were instructed to (1) move the stand magnifier as quickly as possible toward a small target symbol (another LH symbol that could only be seen by using the magnifier), (2) compare the two symbols, and (3) move the magnifier to one of two response areas to indicate whether the two symbols were identical. Performance was measured in terms of accuracy, response time, identification time, and movement time. Viewing distance, as well as hand and eye dominance while using the magnifier was assessed.

resultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups in accuracy, reaction time, and movement time. Contrary to the prediction, children with visual impairment required less time to identify small symbols than children with normal vision. Both within-subject and between-subject variability in viewing distance were smaller in the visually impaired group than in the normally sighted group. In the visually impaired group, a larger viewing distance was associated with shorter identification time, which in turn was associated with higher accuracy. In the normally sighted group, a faster movement with the magnifier and a faster identification were associated with increasing age.

conclusionThe findings indicate that children with visual impairment can use the stand magnifier adequately and efficiently. The normally sighted children show an age-related development in movement time and identification time and show more variability in viewing distance, which is not found in visually impaired children. Visually impaired children seem to choose a standard but less adaptive strategy in which they primarily used their preferred hand to manipulate the magnifier and their preferred eye to identify the symbol.

trial registrationRegistered at http://www.trialregister.nl; NTR2380.

Indexed as

fine motor skillslow visionmagnifiermotor developmentperceptuomotor taskvisually impaired children

Identifiers

PMID27445912
PMCPMC4917530
OpenAlexW2467982966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.