ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
The Preferred Retinal Locus for Reading in 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
- Spatial remapping improves reading with simulated central field loss.Journal of vision · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: People with central vision loss (CVL) often adopt a preferred retinal locus (PRL) for fixation outside the region of central loss. However, it is unknown how often the fixational PRL (fPRL) is used in reading. Here, we assessed if the reading PRL is in the same location as the fPRL. Methods: Participants read text on a computer screen. Reading was randomly interrupted by blanking the screen, and participants reported the word being read when the blanking occurred. The location of this word was compared to the fPRL location, measured with an eye tracker. If reading uses the fPRL, the two locations should overlap. We validated our method with 10 normally sighted controls for whom the fPRL and reading PRL should coincide at the fovea. We then tested 20 participants with CVL. Results: Control participants reported the word at the fPRL, or the next word, in 77.03% of trials. Participants with CVL reported the word at the fPRL, or the next word, on 70.45% of trials. Seventeen reported the word at the fPRL most frequently. Two reported the word to the right of the PRL most frequently, possibly due to a look-ahead strategy. One reported the word to the left of the fPRL most frequently, the target of many regressive saccades. Only one participant with CVL used a reading PRL remote from the fPRL, consistently reporting the word 2 degrees below the fPRL. Conclusions: Most of the participants with CVL in our sample used a reading PRL in close proximity to their fixation PRL.
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.