Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32304534›Full record

ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2020

Online Survey of Digital Reading by Adults with Low Vision.

Yueh-Hsun Wu, Christina Granquist, 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, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Recent Developments in Research to Make the World Better for People with Low Vision.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Screen Magnification for Readers with Low Vision: A Study on Usability and Performance.ASSETS. Annual ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Reconciling print-size and display-size constraints on reading.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    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.

Yueh-Hsun Wu
Christina GranquistDepartment 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.
Gordon E LeggeDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

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

significanceAccess to digital text is increasingly widespread, but its impact on low-vision reading is not well understood. PURPOSE: We conducted an online survey of people with low vision to determine what assistive technologies they use for visual reading, their preferred text characteristics, and the time they devote to reading digital and hard-copy text.

methodsOne hundred thirty-three low-vision participants completed an online survey. Participants reported the nature and history of their low vision, their usage of different assistive technologies, and time devoted to five visual reading activities.

resultsThe three largest diagnostic categories were albinism (n = 36), retinitis pigmentosa (n = 20), and glaucoma (n = 15). Mean self-reported acuity was 0.93 logMAR (range, 0.1 to 1.6 logMAR). Mean age was 46 years (range, 18 to 98 years). Participants reported on percentage time spent reading using vision, audio, or touch (braille). Seventy-five percent of our participants did more than 50% of their reading visually. Across five categories of reading activities-work or education, news, pleasure, spot reading, and social networking-participants reported more time spent on digital reading than hard-copy reading. Eighty-nine percent of our participants used at least one technology from each of our two major categories of assistive technologies (digital content magnifiers and hard-copy content magnifiers) for visual reading.

conclusionsDespite the growing availability of digital text in audio or braille formats, our findings from an online sample of people with low vision indicate the continuing importance of visual reading. Our participants continue to use technology to access both hard-copy and digital text, but more time is devoted to digital reading. Our findings highlight the need for continued research and development of technology to enhance visual reading accessibility.

Indexed as

ReadingSelf-Help DevicesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCommunications MediaDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEyeglassesFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsVision, Low

Identifiers

PMID32304534
PMCPMC7172011

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.