Our purpose was to compare reading performance measured with the MNREAD Acuity Chart and an iPad application (app) version of the same test for both normally sighted and low-vision participants. Our methods included 165 participants with normal vision and 43 participants with low vision tested on the standard printed MNREAD and on the iPad app version of the test. Maximum Reading Speed, Critical Print Size, Reading Acuity, and Reading Accessibility Index were compared using linear mixed-effects models to identify any potential differences in test performance between the printed chart and the iPad app. Our results showed the following: For normal vision, chart and iPad yield similar estimates of Critical Print Size and Reading Acuity. The iPad provides significantly slower estimates of Maximum Reading Speed than the chart, with a greater difference for faster readers. The difference was on average 3% at 100 words per minute (wpm), 6% at 150 wpm, 9% at 200 wpm, and 12% at 250 wpm. For low vision, Maximum Reading Speed, Reading Accessibility Index, and Critical Print Size are equivalent on the iPad and chart. Only the Reading Acuity is significantly smaller (I. E., better) when measured on the digital version of the test, but by only 0.03 logMAR (p = 0.013). Our conclusions were that, overall, MNREAD parameters measured with the printed chart and the iPad app are very similar. The difference found in Maximum Reading Speed for the normally sighted participants can be explained by differences in the method for timing the reading trials.

PurposeThe continuous-text reading-acuity test MNREAD is designed to measure the reading performance of people with normal and low vision. This test is used to estimate maximum reading speed (MRS), critical print size (CPS), reading acuity (RA), and the reading accessibility index (ACC). Here we report the age dependence of these measures for normally sighted individuals, providing baseline data for MNREAD testing.MethodsWe analyzed MNREAD data from 645 normally sighted participants ranging in age from 8 to 81 years. The data were collected in several studies conducted by different testers and at different sites in our research program, enabling evaluation of robustness of the test.ResultsMaximum reading speed and reading accessibility index showed a trilinear dependence on age: first increasing from 8 to 16 years (MRS: 140–200 words per minute [wpm]; ACC: 0.7–1.0); then stabilizing in the range of 16 to 40 years (MRS: 200 ± 25 wpm; ACC: 1.0 ± 0.14); and decreasing to 175 wpm and 0.88 by 81 years. Critical print size was constant from 8 to 23 years (0.08 logMAR), increased slowly until 68 years (0.21 logMAR), and then more rapidly until 81 years (0.34 logMAR). logMAR reading acuity improved from −0.1 at 8 years to −0.18 at 16 years, then gradually worsened to −0.05 at 81 years.ConclusionsWe found a weak dependence of the MNREAD parameters on age in normal vision. In broad terms, MNREAD performance exhibits differences between three age groups: children 8 to 16 years, young adults 16 to 40 years, and middle-aged to older adults >40 years.

No abstract

Results are consistent with the shrinking perceptual span hypothesis: reading speed decreases with the average number of letters traversed on each forward saccade, an effect fully mediated by the total number of fixations.

The four effects improve the ability to predict MRS reliably for AMD patients. The wet/dry difference is a major finding that may result from the different time courses of the two types of disease, thus involving different types of visuomotor and attentional adaptation processes.

Increasing interline spacing is advisable only for very slow readers (<20 words/min) who want to read a few words (spot reading). Vertical crowding does not seem to be a major determinant of maximal reading speed for patients with central scotomas.

Purpose First, to evaluate inter-rater reliability when human raters estimate the reading performance of visually impaired individuals using the MNREAD acuity chart. Second, to evaluate the agreement between computer-based scoring algorithms and compare them with human rating. Methods Reading performance was measured for 101 individuals with low vision, using the Portuguese version of the MNREAD test. Seven raters estimated the maximum reading speed (MRS) and critical print size (CPS) of each individual MNREAD curve. MRS and CPS were also calculated automatically for each curve using two different algorithms: the original standard deviation method (SDev) and a non-linear mixed effects (NLME) modeling. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to estimate absolute agreement between raters and/or algorithms. Results Absolute agreement between raters was ‘excellent’ for MRS (ICC = 0.97; 95%CI [0.96, 0.98]) and ‘moderate’ to ‘good’ for CPS (ICC = 0.77; 95%CI [0.69, 0.83]). For CPS, inter-rater reliability was poorer among less experienced raters (ICC = 0.70; 95%CI [0.57, 0.80]) when compared to experienced ones (ICC = 0.82; 95%CI [0.76, 0.88]). Absolute agreement between the two algorithms was ‘excellent’ for MRS (ICC = 0.96; 95%CI [0.91, 0.98]). For CPS, the best possible agreement was found for CPS defined as the print size sustaining 80% of MRS (ICC = 0.77; 95%CI [0.68, 0.84]). Absolute agreement between raters and automated methods was ‘excellent’ for MRS (ICC = 0.96; 95% CI [0.88, 0.98] for SDev; ICC = 0.97; 95% CI [0.95, 0.98] for NLME). For CPS, absolute agreement between raters and SDev ranged from ‘poor’ to ‘good’ (ICC = 0.66; 95% CI [0.3, 0.80]), while agreement between raters and NLME was ‘good’ (ICC = 0.83; 95% CI [0.76, 0.88]). Conclusion For MRS, inter-rater reliability is excellent, even considering the possibility of noisy and/or incomplete data collected in low-vision individuals. For CPS, inter-rater reliability is lower. This may be problematic, for instance in the context of multisite investigations or follow-up examinations. The NLME method showed better agreement with the raters than the SDev method for both reading parameters. Setting up consensual guidelines to deal with ambiguous curves may help improve reliability. While the exact definition of CPS should be chosen on a case-by-case basis depending on the clinician or researcher’s motivations, evidence suggests that estimating CPS as the smallest print size sustaining about 80% of MRS would increase inter-rater reliability.

The NUF factor is a new oculomotor predictor of reading speed. This effect is independent of the effect of L/FS. Reading performance, as well as motivation to read, might be enhanced if new visual aids or automatic text simplification were used to reduce the occurrence of fixation clustering.