Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39992670›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025

Is the Normal Periphery in Young Adults a Good Model for Reading in the Presence of Central Vision Loss?

Susana T L Chung, Gordon E Legge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. 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
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

2 authors.

Susana T L ChungHerbert Wertheim School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States.
Gordon E LeggeDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.

Funding

PSYCHOPHYSICS OF READING: NORMAL AND LOW VISIONR01EY002934 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI LEGGE, GORDON E · 1985 to 2018
$5.8M
READING IN PERIPHERAL VISIONR01EY012810 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON · PI CHUNG, SUSANA T · 2000 to 2017
$3.8M
Functional impact of fixational eye movements in central vision lossR21EY030253 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI CHUNG, SUSANA T · 2020 to 2021
$432k
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY002934NEI NIH HHS R01 EY012810NEI NIH HHS R21 EY030253
6 · The paper itself

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

ReadingScotomaVisual FieldsAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedVisual AcuityYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39992670
PMCPMC11878245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.