ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Is the Normal Periphery in Young Adults a Good Model for Reading in the Presence of Central Vision Loss?
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. 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.
- 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) · 2026Review
- Beneficial influence of in-context predictability when young adults read with a simulated central scotoma.Journal of vision · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Reading is slow and difficult for many people with central vision loss. Numerous studies have used peripheral vision in normally sighted individuals without ocular disease as a model for reading with central vision loss. In this study, we tested the validity of this model. Methods: Oral reading speed was measured for a range of print sizes for 28 observers with bilateral central vision loss. Each set of reading speed versus print size data was fit with a bilinear function, from which the critical print size (CPS), the smallest print size that supports the maximum reading speed, and the maximum reading speed (MRS) were derived. The eccentricity of the preferred retinal locus (PRL) was determined for each observer. For comparison, values of CPS and MRS at PRL-matched eccentricities in normal peripheral vision of young adults were derived from Chung et al.22. Results: Compared with peripheral vision in young adults, observers with central vision loss exhibited a shallower change in reading speed with print sizes smaller than the CPS (mean ± 95% confidence intervals, 1.77 ± 0.47 vs. 2.32; P = 0.009). They also required larger CPS (mean, 2.24° ± 0.80° vs. 0.97° ± 0.19°; P < 0.0001) to reach their MRS, which was lower than that at PRL-matched eccentricity in normal peripheral vision (mean, 167.8 ± 28.1 words per minute vs. 396.9 ± 58.9 words per minute; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our findings suggest major differences in reading performance between the peripheral vision of young adults with normal vision and those with central vision loss, limiting the suitability of normal peripheral vision as a model for reading with central vision loss.
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.