ArticleExperimental eye research2019
Impact of simulated micro-scotomas on reading performance in central and peripheral retina.
Article in Experimental eye research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulating Macular Degeneration to Investigate Activities of Daily Living: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Pooled it
- Revealing the benefit of eye motion for acuity under emulated cone loss.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Observers with central field loss typically fixate within a non-foveal region called the preferred retinal locus, which can include localized sensitivity losses, or micro-scotomas (Krishnan and Bedell, 2018). In this study, we simulated micro-scotomas at the fovea and in the peripheral retina to assess their impact on reading speed. Ten younger (<36 years old) and 8 older (>50 years old) naïve observers with normal vision monocularly read high and/or low contrast sentences, presented at or above the critical print size for young observers at the fovea and at 5 and 10 deg in the inferior visual field. Reading material comprised MNREAD sentences and sentences taken from novels that were presented in rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) format. Randomly distributed 13 × 13 arc min blocks corresponding to 0-78% of the text area (corresponding to ∼0-17 micro-scotomas/deg
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.