The Impact of Electronic Reading Devices on Reading Speed and Comfort in Patients with Decreased Vision

Abstract

Background/Aims. To evaluate the impact of back-illuminated and nonilluminated electronic reading devices on reading speed and comfort in patients with decreased vision. Methods. A prospective study involving a convenience sample of 167 patients at a single retina practice from January 2011 to December 2012. Participants were asked to read five different excerpts on five different media in a randomly assigned order. Media included a printed book at 12-point font (12PF), iPad2 at 12PF, iPad2 at 18-point font (18PF), Kindle2 at 12PF, and Kindle2 at 18PF. Reading speed in words per minute (WPM) and medium preference were recorded and stratified by visual acuity (VA). Results. Mean reading speeds in WPM: iPad2 at 18PF (217.0), iPad2 at 12PF (209.1), Kindle2 at 18PF (183.3), Kindle2 at 12PF (177.7), and printed book at 12PF (176.8). Reading speed was faster on back-illuminated media compared to nonilluminated media. Text magnification minimized losses in reading performance with worsening patient VA. The majority of participants preferred reading on the iPad2 at 18PF. Conclusions. Back-illuminated devices may increase reading speed and comfort relative to nonilluminated devices and printed text, particularly in patients with decreased VA.

Exploring Associations Between Health Literacy and Visual Impairment in Older Adults with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)

“…The larger the magnification (i.e., character size), the smaller the size of the visual field. Feng et al (2017) found patients with varying degrees of visual impairment read significantly faster with backlit electronic reading devices as compared to other devices. Similar to the results of this study, Feng et al (2017) found the advantage was even more pronounced in participants with lower visual acuity.…”

“…Feng et al (2017) found patients with varying degrees of visual impairment read significantly faster with backlit electronic reading devices as compared to other devices. Similar to the results of this study, Feng et al (2017) found the advantage was even more pronounced in participants with lower visual acuity. Therefore, prescription of appropriate optical devices is important, even in the most severe cases of visual impairment (Legge, 2007).…”

“…The mean S-TOFHLA scores for the participants in the profound category were higher than the severe category for both timed and untimed conditions. This finding was unanticipated considering there is a strong correlation between visual acuity and reading performance (Feng et al, 2017). One could assume the profound category, which included the most severely impaired participants, would obtain the lowest mean score.…”

A Randomized Crossover Study to Assess the Usability of Two New Vision Tests in Patients with Low Vision

“…In addition, there is a reduction in the measurement variability in low vision patients with internal lighting, indicating that the type of illumination is as important as the amount of illumination in visual processing. 29 The computer screen appears to present a more uniform contrast that holds at different distances. This may explain why the tests were not found to be interchangeable and we would encourage careful evaluation of lighting conditions to be used with the BRVT in future studies.…”

Impact of Apps as Assistive Devices for Visually Impaired Persons

“…These studies often involve a comparator. Several such studies were performed to evaluate the efficacy of smartphones and tablets in the context of reading (near tasks) in low-vision users (Feng et al 2017, Gill et al 2013, Morrice et al 2017, Walker et al 2016, Zemke et al 2013). Reading performance is primarily measured using standardized tests of reading speed, among other measures (Calabrèse et al 2016).…”