ArticlePloS one2017
Evaluating Silent Reading Performance with an Eye Tracking System in Patients with Glaucoma.
Article in PloS one, 2017. 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, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eye-tracking reading patterns across different interventions in glaucoma patients versus controls.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Eye tracking for the classification of visual function in individuals with vision impairment: A validation in Para athletes.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Assessment of silent reading ability among glaucoma patients using an eye tracking system with horizontally scrolling text.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Comparison of stereopsis thresholds measured with conventional methods and a new eye tracking method.PloS one · 2023Article
- Eye Tracking in Optometry: A Systematic Review.Journal of eye movement research · 2023Article
- Eye Movement Abnormalities in Glaucoma Patients: A Review.Eye and brain · 2022Review
- Importance of two-dimensional gaze analyses in the assessment of reading performance in patients with retinitis pigmentosa.PloS one · 2022Article
- Evaluation of eye movements and visual performance in patients with cataract.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Slower saccadic reading in Parkinson's disease.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the relationship between silent reading performance and visual field defects in patients with glaucoma using an eye tracking system.
methodsFifty glaucoma patients (Group G; mean age, 52.2 years, standard deviation: 11.4 years) and 20 normal controls (Group N; mean age, 46.9 years; standard deviation: 17.2 years) were included in the study. All participants in Group G had early to advanced glaucomatous visual field defects but better than 20/20 visual acuity in both eyes. Participants silently read Japanese articles written horizontally while the eye tracking system monitored and calculated reading duration per 100 characters, number of fixations per 100 characters, and mean fixation duration, which were compared with mean deviation and visual field index values from Humphrey visual field testing (24-2 and 10-2 Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard) of the right versus left eye and the better versus worse eye.
resultsThere was a statistically significant difference between Groups G and N in mean fixation duration (G, 233.4 msec; N, 215.7 msec; P = 0.010). Within Group G, significant correlations were observed between reading duration and 24-2 right mean deviation (rs = -0.280, P = 0.049), 24-2 right visual field index (rs = -0.306, P = 0.030), 24-2 worse visual field index (rs = -0.304, P = 0.032), and 10-2 worse mean deviation (rs = -0.326, P = 0.025). Significant correlations were observed between mean fixation duration and 10-2 left mean deviation (rs = -0.294, P = 0.045) and 10-2 worse mean deviation (rs = -0.306, P = 0.037), respectively.
conclusionsThe severity of visual field defects may influence some aspects of reading performance. At least concerning silent reading, the visual field of the worse eye is an essential element of smoothness of reading.
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.