The study confirms that in people with visual impairment the reduced reading performance is correlated with fixation instability. Moreover, there is a strong relationship between reading speed and both the proportion of fixations falling within 2° and 4° and bivariate contour ellipse area values.

No abstract

Purpose: There are conflicting reports as to whether there is a binocular advantage or disadvantage when reading with central vision loss. This study examined binocular reading summation in patients with macular degeneration. Methods: Seventy-one patients with bilateral central vision loss due to macular degeneration [mean age: 63 (S.D. = 21) years] participated. Reading performances during binocular and monocular viewing with the better eye (i.e., the eye with the best monocular visual acuity) were evaluated using different versions of the Italian MNREAD reading chart (www.precision-vision.com). Fixation stability and preferred retinal loci (PRLs) were recorded monocularly for each eye. The overall sample was split into inhibition, equality, and summation groups based on the binocular ratio (i.e., binocular/monocular) of the maximum reading speed. Results: 41% of patients experienced binocular inhibition, 42% summation, and 17% equality. Binocular reading speed of the inhibition group was approximately 30 words per minute slower than those of the equality and summation groups, although the inhibition group had the best visual acuity. These patients generally had monocular PRLs in non-corresponding locations temporal or nasal to the scotoma, had the largest interocular acuity difference and lacked residual stereopsis. The three groups did not differ in fixational control, contrast sensitivity or critical print size. Conclusions: Equal proportions of patients with central vision loss show binocular reading summation and inhibition. Patients with binocular reading inhibition have poorer reading performance and different clinical characteristics than those with binocular reading summation and equality.

Background: It is estimated that approximately 1.3 billion people live with some form of distance or near visual impairment. Numerous studies have been carried out to evaluate the effects of biofeedback (BF) and establish if it could be a useful tool in vision rehabilitation for various eye diseases. Objective: This systematic review aimed: 1) to examine the current evidence of BF efficacy for the rehabilitation of the visually impaired and 2) to describe methodological variations used in previous BF studies to provide recommendations for vision rehabilitation interventions. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in the Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases to collect documents published between January 2000 and May 2020. Of the 1,960 studies identified, 43 met the criteria for inclusion. The following information was collected from each study: sample size, control group, any eye disease, apparatus used, frequency and number of sessions of BF, main outcomes of training and whether a follow-up was conducted. The first group included studies published as scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. The second group included abstracts of studies presented at peer-reviewed conferences. Publications were also grouped according to the eye disease treated. Results: 25 articles and 18 peer-reviewed conference abstracts (PRCAs) were included in this review. BF stimulation is a commonly used technique for the treatment of visual impairment caused by macular disease. Most BF studies evaluate the effect of training on the preferred retinal locus (PRL), particularly with regard to fixation location and stability. Across these studies, participants who received BF intervention improved fixation stability and reading speed. High variability in the number of sessions and the duration of BF training was found. Most studies did not use a control group. Conclusions: The findings of this review present evidence for biofeedback treatment in vision rehabilitation, with improved oculomotor abilities. Currently, it is not possible to formulate evidence-based recommendations for a standard training procedure due to the poor quality of existing randomised controlled trials. High-quality studies are needed to develop standard protocols for a range of eye diseases.