PurposeLow-vision clients frequently report having problems with reading. Using magnification, reading performance (as measured by reading speed) can be improved by up to 200%. Current magnification aids can be expensive or bulky; therefore, we explored if the Apple iPad offers comparable performance in improving reading speeds, in comparison with a closed-circuit television (CCTV) video magnifier, or other magnification devices.MethodsWe recruited 100 participants between the ages of 24-97 years, with low vision who were literate and cognitively capable, of whom 57 had age-related macular degeneration. To assess reading, participants read standardized iReST texts and were tested for comprehension. We compared reading speed on the Apple iPad (10 inch) with that of the CCTV, home magnification devices, and baseline measures.ResultsAll assistive devices improved reading rates in comparison to baseline (P<0.001, Hedge's g>1), however, there was no difference in improvement across devices (P>0.05, Hedge's g<0.1). When experience was taken into account, those with iPad experience read, on average, 30 words per minute faster than first time iPad users, whereas CCTV experience did not influence reading speed.ConclusionsIn our sample, the Apple iPad was as effective as currently used technologies for improving reading rates. Moreover, exposure to, and experience with the Apple iPad might increase reading speed with that device. A larger sample size, however, is needed to do subgroup analysis on who would optimally benefit from each type of magnification device.

Purpose This study examined the effectiveness of the LuxIQ, the Apple iPad and a smart bulb in assessing optimal colour and illumination to facilitate reading in younger, older and visually impaired adults. Methods Participants read standardised texts at baseline (normal lighting/no device), then using the Apple iPad, LuxIQ and smart bulb, with their normal vision (20/20 condition) and using a simulated reduction in visual acuity/contrast sensitivity (20/80 condition). Visually impaired participants followed the same procedure used in the 20/80 condition. Results There was a significant interaction between condition and device in younger, F(1.5, 43.51) = 30.41, p < 0.001, ω2 = 0.34 and older, F(1.5, 4.51) = 4.51, p = 0.03, ω2 = 0.05 adults with normal vision, and there was a significant effect of device, F(2, 58) = 5.95, p = 0.004, ω2 = 0.12 in visually impaired adults. In the 20/20 condition, age and colour predicted reading speed, F(3, 176) = 36.25, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.37, whereas age, lighting and colour predicted reading speed, F(3, 176) = 36.25, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.37 in the 20/80 condition. In the visual impairment condition, lighting, colour and impairment severity predicted reading speed, F(3, 85) = 10.10, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.24. Conclusions The clinical implications of this study are that reading speeds improve in individuals with low vision under improved lighting conditions, specifically, with higher levels of luminance and colour temperature. The effectiveness of the devices varied across groups; however, the LuxIQ was the only device to improve reading speeds from baseline in older adults with visual impairments.