ArticleVision research2018
Training peripheral vision to read: Boosting the speed of letter processing.
Article in Vision research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of home reading training on reading and quality of life in AMD-a randomized and controlled study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2019Trial
- Eye yoga for glaucoma: recovery of vascular dysregulation and visual field function-a randomized controlled trial.The EPMA journal · 2025Article
- Enhancement of visual perception by combining transcranial electrical stimulation and visual perceptual training.Medical review (2021) · 2022Review
- Training peripheral vision to read: Using stimulus exposure and identity priming.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Training to improve temporal processing of letters benefits reading speed for people with central vision loss.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Training peripheral vision to read: Reducing crowding through an adaptive training method.Vision research · 2020Article
- Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Central-field loss necessitates the use of peripheral vision which makes reading slow and difficult. Slower temporal processing of letter recognition has been shown to be a limiting factor in peripheral letter recognition and reading. Previous studies showed that perceptual learning can increase the number of letters recognized on each fixation and is accompanied by an increase in reading speed. We hypothesized that improvement in temporal processing speed underlies the observed training effects. Here, we proposed an adaptive training procedure to focus on boosting the speed of letter recognition, and investigated whether peripheral reading would be enhanced by this training method. Seven normally-sighted subjects were trained with four daily one-hour sessions of a letter recognition task at 10° in the lower visual field in a pre/post design. During training, we adjusted stimulus duration on a block by block basis to maintain task difficulty near a pre-defined level of 80% performance accuracy. Stimulus duration progressively decreased with training, indicative of faster letter recognition at the 80% criterion. Following training, reading speed measured using a rapid serial visual presentation showed a substantial improvement in the trained (lower) field (41%) and the untrained (upper) field (27%), similar to the improvements observed from the training with a fixed stimulus duration. Despite being no more effective than the previous training, the adaptive temporal training method may allow individualized training, and may have advantages for clinical populations.
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.