ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Training peripheral vision to read: Using stimulus exposure and identity priming.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving lesion detection skills in medical imaging education through enhanced peripheral visual perception.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Relationship between residual visual field and full-field stimulus testing in patients with late-stage retinal degenerative diseases.Scientific reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Reading in the periphery can be improved with perceptual learning. A conventional training paradigm involves repeated practice on a character-based task (e.g., recognizing random letters/words). While the training is effective, the hours of strenuous effort required from the trainees makes it difficult to implement the training in low-vision patients. Here, we developed a training paradigm utilizing stimulus exposure and identity priming to minimize training effort and improve training accessibility while maintaining the active engagement of observers through a stimulus visibility task. Twenty-one normally sighted young adults were randomly assigned to three groups: a control group, a with-repetition training group, and a without-repetition training group. All observers received a pre-test and a post-test scheduled 1 week apart. Each test consisted of measurements of reading speed, visual-span profile, the spatial extent of crowding, and isolated-letter profiles at 10° eccentricity in the lower visual field. Training consists of five daily sessions (a total of 7,150 trials) of viewing trigram stimuli (strings of three letters) with identity priming (prior knowledge of target letter identity). The with-repetition group was given the option to replay each stimulus (averaged 0.4 times). In comparison to the control group, both training groups showed significant improvements in all four performance measures. Stimulus replay did not yield a measurable benefit on learning. Learning transferred to various untrained tasks and conditions, such as the reading task and untrained letter size. Reduction in crowding was the main basis of the training-related improvement in reading. We also found that the learning can be partially retained for a minimum of 3 months and that complete retention is attainable with additional monthly training. Our findings suggest that conventional training task that requires recognizing random letters or words is dispensable for improving peripheral reading. Utilizing stimulus exposure and identity priming accompanied by a stimulus visibility task, our novel training procedure offers effective intervention, simple implementation, capability for remote and self-administration, and an easy translation into low-vision reading 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.