Eye Exercises and Reading Efficiency

Heath, Earl J.; Cook, Patricia; O'Dell, Nancy

doi:10.1177/105345127601100408

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The relationship of smooth ocular control to efficiency of time and effort in reading were considered to have contributed to the effectiveness of the Bender exercises. These results support the premise that ocular control can be improved (Heath et al, 1976). Punnet and Steinhaven (1984) in a carefully controlled study involving a training programme for children with ocular motility irregularities showed that response-contingent reinforcement and ocular motor training can, in combination lead to patterns of eye movements more appropriate for reading.…”

Section: Research Evidencesupporting

confidence: 53%

Reading Difficulties and Optometry — A Review

Rodger

1985

Aus Occup Therapy J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changing trends in the field of learning disabilities compel occupational therapists to keep up with trends and new approaches and to be able to view these objectively and scientifically. In this perspective, it is timely that the practice of optometry with learning disabled children is reviewed, as many occupational therapists refer children to optometrists for further assessment or to compliment their own treatment regimes. A review of the literature highlights definitional problems and conflicting findings. Although there is some support for the efficacy of optometric therapy, much of the published literature lacks an empirical scientific basis. It seems that vision training programmes are useful with some children, however visual or perceptual training techniques are not applicable to all types of reading difficulties.

show abstract

Section: Research Evidencesupporting

confidence: 53%

Reading Difficulties and Optometry — A Review

Rodger

1985

Aus Occup Therapy J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our finding should not be taken as an endorsement of any of the multiple programs of eye-movement exercises (Heath, Cook, & O'Dell 1976) presently in FIGURE 8. Reading of an above-level text, Illustrating unusual diagonal movement (arrow) and the tendency to reread the same line (case 6).…”

Section: Symbol-simulated Readingmentioning

confidence: 56%

Eye Movement Patterns in Dyslexic Children

et al. 1980

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we recorded eye movements during reading tasks for five dyslexic children and two controls. The subjects had vertical as well as horizontal eye position monitored with an infrared recording technique and performed a symbol-simulated reading task. We demonstrated the importance of both the symbol simulation and the vertical monitoring in evaluating the eye-movement patterns in dyslexics. Without the symbols, motor and comprehension defects cannot be distinguished. Without vertical eye position information, the horizontal eye-movement pattern is not properly interpretable.

show abstract

“…These data reveal much about reading, but attempts to translate them to instruction have been problematic. Because studies have shown that poorer readers have less efficient eye movement, this has led to optometric training of the eyes to read better (Heath, Cook, & O’Dell, 1976; Keogh & Pelland, 1985); such interventions have come and gone since the 1930s but are still with us today (Apperson, 1940; Murphy, 2017). These days, there are even computerized systems that supposedly transform one into a faster, more efficient reader by banishing eye movements altogether, as studies have shown that eye movements require too much of a reader’s time (Spritz,n.d.).…”

Section: A Science Of Reading Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Constitutes a Science of Reading Instruction?

Shanahan¹

2020

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, the term science of reading has been used in public debate to promote policies and instructional practices based on research on the basic cognitive mechanisms of reading, the neural processes involved in reading, computational models of learning to read, and the like. According to those views, such data provide convincing evidence that explicit decoding instruction (e.g., phonological awareness, phonics) should be beneficial to reading success. Nevertheless, there has been pushback against such policies, the use of the term science of reading by “phonics‐centric people”, and their lack of instructional knowledge and experience. In this article, although the author supports pedagogical decision making on the basis of a confluence of evidence from a variety of sources, he cautions against instructional overgeneralizations based on various kinds of basic research without an adequate consideration of instructional experiments. The author provides several examples of the premature translation of basic research findings into wide‐scale pedagogical application.

show abstract

Eye Exercises and Reading Efficiency

Cited by 15 publications

References 2 publications

Reading Difficulties and Optometry — A Review

Reading Difficulties and Optometry — A Review

Eye Movement Patterns in Dyslexic Children

What Constitutes a Science of Reading Instruction?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About