Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30208426›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2018

Bayesian adaptive assessment of the reading function for vision: The qReading method.

Fang Hou, Yukai Zhao, Luis Andres Lesmes, Peter Bex, Deyue Yu, Zhong-Lin Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Fang HouSchool of Ophthalmology & Optometry and Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Yukai ZhaoCenter for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Brain Imaging, and Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Luis Andres LesmesAdaptive Sensory Technology, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.
Peter BexDepartment of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Deyue YuCollege of Optometry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Zhong-Lin LuCenter for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Brain Imaging, and Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.

Funding

Efficient Assessment of Visual Deficits and Rehabilitation Methods in AmblyopiaR01EY021553 · NEI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI LU, ZHONG-LIN · 2012 to 2016
$2.1M
Efficient Assessment of Visual Deficits in Low VisionR01EY025658 · NEI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI YU, DEYUE · 2016 to 2020
$1.9M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY021553NEI NIH HHS R01 EY025658
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reading is a fundamental skill that can be significantly affected by visual disabilities. Reading performance, which typically is measured as reading speed with a reading chart, is a key endpoint for quantifying normal or abnormal vision. Despite its importance for clinical vision, existing reading tests for vision are time consuming and difficult to administer. Here, we propose a Bayesian adaptive method, the qReading method, for automated assessment of the reading speed versus print size function. We implemented the qReading method with a word/nonword lexical decision task and validated the method with computer simulations and a psychophysical experiment. Computer simulations showed that both the interrun standard deviation and intrarun half width of the 68.2% credible interval of the estimated reading speeds from the qReading method were less than 0.1 log10 units after 150 trials, with a bias of 0.05 log10 units. In the psychophysical experiment, reading functions measured by the qReading and Psi methods (Kontsevich & Tyler, 1999) in a word/nonword lexical decision task were compared. The estimated reading functions obtained with the qReading and Psi methods were highly correlated (r = 0.966 ± 0.004, p < 0.01). The precision of the qReading method with 225 trials was comparable to that of the Psi method with 450 trials. We conclude that the qReading method can precisely and accurately assess the reading function in much reduced time, with great promise in both basic research and clinical applications.

Indexed as

ReadingAlgorithmsBayes TheoremComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMalePsychophysicsVision DisordersVision Tests

Identifiers

PMID30208426
PMCPMC6133446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.