ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2019
People With Central Vision Loss Have Difficulty Watching Videos.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct roles of central and peripheral vision in rapid scene understanding.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- The natural preferred retinal locus in patients with macular disease.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Further evaluation of narrative description as a measure of cognitive function in Alzheimer's disease.Neuropsychology · 2023Article
- An implementation of Bubble Magnification did not improve the video comprehension of individuals with central vision loss.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2021Article
- The Effect of Zoom Magnification and Large Display on Video Comprehension in Individuals With Central Vision Loss.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- The Impact of Field of View on Understanding of a Movie Is Reduced by Magnifying Around the Center of Interest.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
- Orientation of the preferred retinal locus (PRL) is maintained following changes in simulated scotoma size.Journal of vision · 2020Article
- Narrative video scene description task discriminates between levels of cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease.Neuropsychology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: People with central vision loss (CVL) often report difficulties watching video. We objectively evaluated the ability to follow the story (using the information acquisition method). Methods: Subjects with CVL (n = 23) or normal vision (NV, n = 60) described the content of 30-second video clips from movies and documentaries. We derived an objective information acquisition (IA) score for each response using natural-language processing. To test whether the impact of CVL was simply due to reduced resolution, another group of NV subjects (n = 15) described video clips with defocus blur that reduced visual acuity to 20/50 to 20/800. Mixed models included random effects correcting for differences between subjects and between the clips, with age, gender, cognitive status, and education as covariates. Results: Compared to both NV groups, IA scores were worse for the CVL group (P < 0.001). IA reduced with worsening visual acuity (P < 0.001), and the reduction with worsening visual acuity was greater for the CVL group than the NV-defocus group (P = 0.01), which was seen as a greater discrepancy at worse levels of visual acuity. Conclusions: The IA method was able to detect difficulties in following the story experienced by people with CVL. Defocus blur failed to recreate the CVL experience. IA is likely to be useful for evaluations of the effects of vision rehabilitation.
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.