2018
DOI: 10.1167/18.1.8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing performance on the MNREAD iPad application with the MNREAD acuity chart

Abstract: 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 ident… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
102
2
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(111 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
6
102
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In this sample of visually impaired people attending for low vision assessment, average clinical reading accessibility (ACC) was 0.31, comparable with other samples of visually impaired observers (0.35-0.36; (Calabrèse et al, 2018;Tarita-Nistor et al, 2018)), and lower than that seen for people with surgically-significant cataract (0.65; (Calabrèse, Owsley, et al, 2016)). The ACC for the majority of observers (92%) improved with use of an LVA, with an average improvement of 0.16.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 60%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In this sample of visually impaired people attending for low vision assessment, average clinical reading accessibility (ACC) was 0.31, comparable with other samples of visually impaired observers (0.35-0.36; (Calabrèse et al, 2018;Tarita-Nistor et al, 2018)), and lower than that seen for people with surgically-significant cataract (0.65; (Calabrèse, Owsley, et al, 2016)). The ACC for the majority of observers (92%) improved with use of an LVA, with an average improvement of 0.16.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Since ACC is a relatively recently proposed parameter, it has previously been determined in only three other samples of observers with some form of visual loss (Table 4). These have been one group with cataract (Calabrèse, Owsley, et al, 2016) and two groups with visual impairment, either from mixed causes of visual loss (Calabrèse et al, 2018), or central field loss specifically (Tarita-Nistor et al, 2018). It is clear that visual impairment has a marked impact on reading accessibility (0.31 -0.36 across studies) as compared to a normative value of 1.0, and also compared to the sample with cataract (0.65).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Reading performance (near visual acuity, critical print size, reading speed) was measured using the iPad version of the MNREAD test (http://www.apps.apple.com/us/app/mnread/id1196638274). Visual field data were extracted from the participant’s medical records. Those with loss only within the central 15 degrees were classified as having central loss, those with loss only beyond 15 degrees as peripheral loss, those with loss in both regions as mixed, and without field loss as no field loss.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are reasons to believe that the manual administration leads to an overestimate of the true reading rate by some 10%. This is because the participant can see the chart a few 100 ms before the timer is started (Calabrèse, To, He, Berkholtz, Rafian, & Legge, 2018). A final difference is that the texts are not followed by questions, as is customary in silent reading studies.…”
Section: Reading Charts In Ophthalmologymentioning
confidence: 99%