ArticleJournal of vision2021
A comparison of reading, in people with simulated and actual central vision loss, with static text, horizontally scrolling text, and rapid serial visual presentation.
Article in Journal of vision, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reading Arabic Under Simulated Low Vision: Orthographic Complexity Shapes the Effect of Contrast Polarity.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Beneficial influence of in-context predictability when young adults read with a simulated central scotoma.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Reading with Screen Magnification: Eye Movement Analysis Using Compensated Gaze Tracks.Proceedings. Eye Tracking Research & Applications Symposium · 2024Article
- Customizing spatial remapping of letters to aid reading in the presence of a simulated central field loss.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Validation of a computerized version of the MNREAD chart for children.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reading with central vision loss (CVL), as caused by macular disease, may be enhanced by presenting text using dynamic formats such as horizontally scrolling text or rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). The rationale for these dynamic text formats is that they can be read while holding gaze away from the text, potentially supporting reading while using the eccentric viewing strategy. This study was designed to evaluate the practice of reading with CVL, with passages of text presented as static sentences, with horizontal scrolling sentences, or as single-word RSVP. In separate studies, normally sighted participants with a simulated (artificial) central scotoma, controlled by an eye-tracker, or participants with CVL resulting from macular degeneration read passages of text using the eccentric viewing technique. Comprehension was better overall with scrolling text when reading with a simulated CVL, whereas RSVP produced lower overall comprehension and high error rates. Analysis of eye movement behavior showed that participants consistently adopted a strategy of making multiple horizontal saccades on the text itself. Adherence to using eccentric viewing was better with RSVP, but this did not translate into better reading performance. Participants with macular degeneration and an actual CVL also showed the highest comprehension and lowest error rates with scrolling text and the lowest comprehension and highest errors with RSVP. We conclude that scrolling text can support effective reading in people with CVL and has potential as a reading aid.
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.