ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
The Effects of Refractive Imbalance on Binocular Vision Status, Reading Performance, and Vision-Related Reading Difficulty Symptoms in Expert Readers.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-Term Residual Myopic Bias Measured by Open-Field Autorefraction After 10-Second Myopic Overcorrection in Young Myopic Adults.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Changing Natural History of Anisometropia: A Scoping Review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Structural and microvascular changes in anisometropic amblyopia: a comparative analysis of swept-source OCTA.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Refractive Surprises After Cataract Surgery: Identification and Management in Optometric Practice- A Comprehensive Review.Clinical optometry · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate how refractive imbalance affects binocular vision parameters, reading performance, and vision-related reading difficulty symptomatology after short periods of reading with different simulated ophthalmic lens power conditions in expert adult readers. Methods: Eighteen adult participants (18-35 years of age) were recruited. They were expert readers, defined as currently studying, or previously studied to, at least a bachelor's degree tertiary education level. Refractive imbalance conditions were simulated by placing -2.00, -1.00, 0.00, +1.00, and +2.00 diopters (D) ophthalmic lenses in front of the dominant eye over their full refractive error correction. For each condition, participants were required to read sets of three paragraphs from the background section of an academic journal paper, after which reading comprehension, reading speed, symptomatology, visual acuity, and binocular vision status were assessed for each set through refractive imbalance conditions. Results: A significant reduction of binocular visual acuity was observed for distance (+2.00 D condition) and near (±2.00 D conditions) viewing distances. The greater the refractive imbalance stimulus provided to the dominant eye monocularly, the more underfocused the binocular accommodative response. Simulated refractive imbalance did not affect reading speed and comprehension. Stereoacuity and subjective vision-related reading difficulty symptoms worsened with increased absolute refractive imbalance. Conclusions: Simulated refractive imbalance did not affect reading performance for the short reading task but resulted in statistically significant reductions in clarity, increased binocular difficulties, and visual discomfort. During reading, full correction of refractive imbalance is beneficial and recommended.
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.