Reading aids for adults with low vision

Virgili, Gianni; Acosta, R.; Bentley, Sharon A; Giacomelli, Giovanni; Allcock, Claire; Evans, Jennifer R

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003303.pub4

Cited by 98 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A Cochrane Review concluded that electronic devices tended to be preferred to optical ones. 5 More recently, a retrospective review by Nguyen et al 22 of 530 vision rehabilitation patients reported improved reading speeds in patients who were prescribed low vision aids; 42% of the group received video camera magnifiers. It is not stated whether there was a difference between those receiving video camera magnifiers or other aids.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A 2013 Cochrane Review examined all available randomized and quasi-randomized studies relevant to magnifying reading aids for adults with low vision (10 studies were included) and concluded that the evidence was insufficient to assess the effect of low-vision devices on reading performance, although there was some evidence that electronic devices were associated with more improvement in reading speed than optical devices were. 5 The present study compared patients who received standard visual rehabilitation (VR) with those who, in addition to VR, were provided with a video magnifier (VM) at their initial contact with a multidisciplinary vision rehabilitation service. VR included an initial consultation during which patients were educated about rehabilitation strategies, given information about remaining visual function, and shown a range of optical and electronic devices, which they could purchase.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adding access to a video magnifier to standard vision rehabilitation: initial results on reading performance and well-being from a prospective, randomized study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-Both optical and electronic magnification are available to patients with low vision. Electronic video magnifiers are more expensive than optical magnifiers, but they offer additional benefits, including variable magnification and contrast. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of access to a video magnifier (VM) added to standard comprehensive vision rehabilitation (VR).Methods-In this prospective study, 37 subjects with central field loss were randomized to receive standard VR (VR group, 18 subjects) or standard VR plus VM (VM group, 19 subjects). Subjects read the International Reading Speed Texts (IReST), a bank check, and a phone number at enrollment, at 1 month, and after occupational therapy (OT) as indicated to address patient goals. The Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire, a version of the Activity Inventory (AI), and the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) were administered at enrollment, 1 month, after OT, 1 month later, and 1 year after enrollment. Assessments at enrollment and 1 month later were evaluated.Results-At 1 month, the VM group displayed significant improvement in reading continuous print as measured by the IReST (P = 0.01) but did not differ on IVI, AI, or DASS. From enrollment to 1 month all subjects improved in their ability to spot read (phone number and check; P < 0.01 for both). The VM group improved in their ability to find and read a number in a phone book more than the VR group at 1 month after initial consultation (P = 0.02). All reported better well-being (P = 0.02).Conclusions-All subjects reported better well-being on the IVI. The VM group read faster and was better at two spot reading tasks but did not differ from the VR group in other outcome measures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adding access to a video magnifier to standard vision rehabilitation: initial results on reading performance and well-being from a prospective, randomized study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinically, the provision of magnifiers and/or teaching patients the techniques of eccentric viewing are almost always the first two steps in addressing the reading goal of patients with macular disease. Comprehensive reviews on these two topics can be found elsewhere . In this paper, we will focus on other attempts to improve reading performance which included modifications of current fonts and/or designs of new fonts that might make reading easier, training or perceptual learning to improve reading performance, and remapping the visual input that fall into the scotoma onto a more functional part of the retina.…”

Section: Improving Reading For People With Macular Diseasementioning

confidence: 99%

Reading in the presence of macular disease: a mini‐review

Chung

2020

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Reading is vital to full participation in modern society. To millions of people suffering from macular disease that results in a central scotoma, reading is difficult and inefficient, rendering reading as the primary goal for most patients seeking low vision rehabilitation. The goals of this review paper are to summarize the dependence of reading speed on several key visual and typographical factors and the current methods or technologies for improving reading performance for people with macular disease. Important findings In general, reading speed for people with macular disease depends on print size, text contrast, size of the visual span, temporal processing of letters and oculomotor control. Attempts at improving reading speed by reducing the crowding effect between letters, words or lines; or optimizing properties of typeface such as the presence of serifs or stroke‐width thickness proved to be futile, with any improvement being modest at best. Currently, the most promising method to improve reading speed for people with macular disease is training, including perceptual learning or oculomotor training. Summary The limitation on reading speed for people with macular disease is likely to be multi‐factorial. Future studies should try to understand how different factors interact to limit reading speed, and whether different methods could be combined to produce a much greater benefit.

show abstract

“…To determine the benefits of reading rehabilitation, appropriate outcome measures are needed. Reading speed is often used as an outcome measure (Virgili et al, 2018), since it is a good predictor of visual difficulty (Hazel, Petre, Armstrong, Benson, & Frost, 2000;McClure, Hart, Jackson, Stevenson, & Chakravarthy, 2000). The ability to read print of different sizes is also of practical importance (Legge and Bigelow, 2011), and measures of reading acuity (RA; the smallest size of print that can be read) and critical print size (CPS; the smallest size of print that can be read at maximum reading speed (MRS)) can indicate whether someone would be able to read print of a specific size.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits of low vision aids to reading accessibility

Latham

2018

Vision Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Reading Accessibility Index (ACC) has been proposed as a single-value reading parameter that can capture information on both reading speed and print sizes that can be read. It is defined as the average reading speed across a relevant range of print sizes (1.3-0.4logMAR), normalised by typical young-adult reading speed of 200wpm, and with values typically in the range of 0-1. This study determines the impact of low vision aids (LVAs) on reading by evaluating ACC values for visually impaired observers reading both without and with an optical LVA. A secondary analysis of previously published data obtained from 100 visually impaired observers attending low vision assessments was undertaken. Observers had mixed causes of visual impairment but predominantly macular degeneration (n=55). All used an LVA for reading, with 88% using it 'often' or 'very often'. MNREAD reading parameters, including ACC, were determined both for reading without an LVA (clinical function) and with the LVA habitually used for reading (aided function). There was a significant (p<.001) improvement in ACC from clinical (0.31 (95% CI 0.25, 0.36)) to aided conditions (0.47 (0.41, 0.52)). Average improvement in ACC with an LVA was 0.16 (0.13, 0.18), but the benefits of LVAs in terms of improvement in ACC could not be predicted from clinical visual function. Even with an LVA reading accessibility is, on average, markedly reduced from normal levels. The ACC is a potentially valuable outcome measure for reading rehabilitation interventions.

show abstract

Reading aids for adults with low vision

Abstract: Editorial group: Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group. Publication status and date: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions), published in Issue 4, 2018.

Cited by 98 publications

References 64 publications

Adding access to a video magnifier to standard vision rehabilitation: initial results on reading performance and well-being from a prospective, randomized study

Adding access to a video magnifier to standard vision rehabilitation: initial results on reading performance and well-being from a prospective, randomized study

Reading in the presence of macular disease: a mini‐review

Benefits of low vision aids to reading accessibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About