ArticleVision research2020
Training peripheral vision to read: Reducing crowding through an adaptive training method.
Article in Vision research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving Peripheral Reading With Noninvasive Transcranial Electrical Stimulation of Early Visual Areas.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Trial
- 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
- Visual function and biofeedback training of patients with central vision loss: a review.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Review
- Binocular summation in high and low contrast letter acuities.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Training peripheral vision to read: Using stimulus exposure and identity priming.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Reading is slow and difficult for people with central vision loss who must rely on their peripheral vision. It has been shown that practicing on a letter-recognition task can increase peripheral reading speed, and that the training-related improvement is attributable mainly to reduced crowding. Since there is a high degree of variability in the vision conditions across people with central vision loss, a one-size-fits-all training protocol may not be adequate or appropriate for these patients. In this study, we target two aspects of training-training task and individual customization, and propose a training paradigm that focuses on reducing crowding and tailors training for each individual using an adaptive method. Seven normally-sighted adults were trained with four daily sessions of identifying crowded letters presented at various positions 10° below fixation in a pre/post design. During the training, a dynamic cue (jitter motion) was applied to target letters to modulate crowding. Amplitude of motion was varied on a block by block basis according to individual performance to maintain task difficulty near a pre-defined level (80% accuracy in letter recognition). We found that motion amplitude gradually reduced as training progressed, indicating a reduction in crowding. Following training, reading speed (measured using RSVP method) showed a significant improvement in both the trained (49%) and untrained (50%) visual fields. Despite showing similar improvement as observed in the previous training studies, our adaptive training method demands less effort and, most importantly, offers customization for each individual trainee.
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.