Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30169350›Full record

ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2018

How People with Low Vision Achieve Magnification in Digital Reading.

Christina Granquist, Yueh-Hsun Wu, Rachel Gage, Michael D Crossland, Gordon E Legge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Reconciling print-size and display-size constraints on reading.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  8. Human visual skills for brain-computer interface use: a tutorial.Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology · 2020
    Review
  9. Online Survey of Digital Reading by Adults with Low Vision.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Christina Granquist
Yueh-Hsun WuDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Rachel GageDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Michael D CrosslandMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom *granq011@umn.edu.
Gordon E LeggeDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
University of Minnesota · USMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

PSYCHOPHYSICS OF READING: NORMAL AND LOW VISIONR01EY002934 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI LEGGE, GORDON E · 1985 to 2018
$5.8M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY002934
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

significanceDigital reading displays provide opportunities for enhancing accessibility of text for low vision. How are these displays used by people in their daily lives? PURPOSE: Subjects responded to an online survey concerning their vision history, reading technology, display preferences, and reading habits. Here, we report on findings concerning acuity and magnification.

methodsThe survey asked subjects to arrange a text passage for typical reading and to report viewing distance, screen dimensions, and the number of characters per line. Seventy-five adult subjects (most with early-onset low vision, few with central field loss) completed all survey questions relevant to the analysis of acuity and magnification. Mean acuity was .92 logMAR (range, 0.1 to 1.6), and mean age was 44.8 years (range, 18 to 71 years). Twelve normally sighted controls reported the same information while viewing the passage on cell phones, tablets, and computers.

resultsThe controls had a mean viewing distance of 38.7 cm and a mean x-height of 1.38 mm. For all three types of devices, angular x-height was 0.21° (close to laboratory estimates of the critical print size for reading). Low vision subjects showed decreasing viewing distance and increasing print size with larger values of logMAR acuity. Most of the low vision subjects achieved their desirable magnification by a combination of reduced viewing distance and increased physical letter size. The majority (54 of 75) relied more on letter-size magnification. Relative to the controls, regression analysis revealed that a typical low vision subject with logMAR acuity of 1.0 reduced viewing distance by a factor of 2.8 and enlarged physical print size by a factor of 6.

conclusionsOur survey shows that people with a wide range of acuities are engaged in digital reading. Our subjects achieved desirable magnification primarily by enlarging physical character size and to a lesser extent by reducing viewing distance.

Indexed as

Audiovisual AidsReadingAdolescentAdultAgedCommunications MediaComputersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysical ExaminationVision, LowVision, OcularVisual AcuityYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30169350
PMCPMC6123827
OpenAlexW2889086652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.