Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38635281›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2024

Customizing spatial remapping of letters to aid reading in the presence of a simulated central field loss.

Colin S Flowers, Gordon E Legge, Stephen A Engel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Preferred Retinal Locus for Reading in Central Vision Loss.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Colin S FlowersDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Gordon E LeggeDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Stephen A EngelDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

Remapping the Visual Field to Aid Reading with Central ScotomasR01EY030890 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI ENGEL, STEPHEN A., KOOZEKANANI, DARA · 2020 to 2024
$1.9M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY030890
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reading is a primary concern of patients with central field loss (CFL) because it is typically performed with foveal vision. Spatial remapping offers one potential avenue to aid in reading; it entails shifting occluded letters to retinal areas where vision is functional. Here, we introduce a method of creating and testing different remapping strategies-ways to remap text-customized for CFL of different shapes. By simulating CFL in typically-sighted individuals, we tested the customization hypothesis-that the benefits of different remapping strategies will depend on the properties of the CFL. That is, remapping strategies will aid reading differentially in the presence of differently shaped CFL. In Experiment 1, letter recognition in the presence of differently shaped CFL was assessed in and around central vision. Using these letter recognition "maps" different spatial remappings were created and tested in Experiment 2 using a word recognition task. Results showed that the horizontal gap remapping, which did not remap any letters vertically, resulted in the best word recognition. Results were also consistent with the customization hypothesis; the benefits of different remappings on word recognition depended on the different CFL shapes. Although the horizontal gap remapping resulted in very good word recognition, tailoring remapping strategies to the shape of patients' CFL may aid reading with the wide range of sizes and shapes encountered by patients with CFL.

Indexed as

Fovea CentralisReadingHumansRecognition, PsychologyRetina

Identifiers

PMID38635281
PMCPMC11033602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.