Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40525906›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2025

Beneficial influence of in-context predictability when young adults read with a simulated central scotoma.

Eole Lapeyre, Núria Gala, Aurélie Calabrèse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Eole LapeyreCRPN CNRS UMR 7077, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France.
Núria GalaLPL CNRS UMR 7309, Aix Marseille University, Aix-en-Provence, France.
Aurélie CalabrèseCRPN CNRS UMR 7077, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conflicting results have been reported regarding the effect of word predictability when reading with eccentric vision. The present study aims to shed light on these discrepancies by investigating how in-context word predictability influences reading performance with a simulated scotoma, while considering the visual and lexical features of words. Thirty-five healthy young people read aloud sentences presented using the self-paced reading paradigm. A group of 22 participants practiced reading with a 10° diameter, gaze-contingent simulated central scotoma, with the other group serving as controls. Each participant underwent two in-lab sessions, reading 304 sentences (2-4 hours, depending on their group). Reading time, fixation number, and duration were analyzed for each target word using mixed-effect models. When reading with a simulated scotoma, in-context predictability shows a significant effect on performance, with a 35% decrease in reading time for highly predictable words compared with unpredictable ones (2.5 seconds vs. 1.6 seconds). This effect is modulated by practice, with the decrease dropping to 22% (1.3 seconds vs. 1.0 seconds) after only few hours of scotoma exposure. This effect seems to be driven by the total number of fixations required to identify words and is absent in the control group. These results support the hypothesis that reading with eccentric vision, which limits visual access to text, results in a stronger in-context predictability advantage. Moreover, this effect has a greater impact early in eccentric reading practice. This suggests greater reliance on linguistic inferences to compensate for impaired visual input, compared with central reading, at least until functional adaptation occurs.

Indexed as

ReadingScotomaVisual FieldsAdolescentAdultFemaleFixation, OcularHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40525906
PMCPMC12178433

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.