Font effects on reading parameters: comparing Radner Reading Charts printed in Helvetica and Times Roman

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the effect of font choice on reading parameters by using the RADNER Reading Charts printed in two fonts (Helvetica vs. Times Roman) equalized in terms of x-height. Methods This is a cross-sectional study of 40 participants with healthy eyes (18 to 60 years of age; mean: 42.13 ± 12.28 years). Reading performance was evaluated binocularly with RADNER Reading Charts printed in either Helvetica Neue (T1) Roman sans serif (Adobe) or Times New Roman PS Roman serif (Adobe). The test distance was 40 cm. Reading charts were presented in random order. Reading acuity (RA), mean reading speed of all sentences read (MEAN-ALL RS), mean reading speed from 0.8 logRAD to 0.3 logRAD (MEAN-RS), maximum reading speed (MAX-RS), and critical print size (CPS) were compared. Results The RA values obtained for the Helvetica and Times Roman fonts (in full logarithmic units of 0.1 logRAD) did not differ between the two fonts (mean for both fonts: − 0.128 ± 0.064 logRAD; 95% CI for both: − 0.148; − 0.107 logRAD). The differences in all other reading parameters between the two fonts were small and not statistically significant. The analyses revealed narrow confidence intervals and good coefficients of reliability. Except for the CPS (r = 0.49) and RA (equal for Helvetica and Times Roman), the correlations for all parameters were high, ranging from r = 0.92 to r = 0.98. Conclusion The equivalent reading performance obtained with Helvetica and Times Roman (when equalized in x-height and layout) makes these font types interchangeable as standards for reading charts.

Towards a standardisation of reading charts: Font effects on reading performance—Times New Roman with serifs versus the sans serif font Helvetica

“…Since no geometrically progressing reading charts using long paragraphs were available in which the fonts could be exchanged and equalised in terms of print size, we used a set of three paragraphs of 111 words each, which had been shown statistically to be equal in reading length and difficulty, 13 and we equated the x‐height to 1.57 mm in the main arm of the study. However, we cannot be certain that our results can be generalised beyond this specific print size, as we had previously shown for single sentences 19 . For calibrating visual acuity results obtained with distance acuity charts using optotypes other than the Landolt ring in a psychophysical study, ISO/TR 19498:2015 and the standard of the International Council of Ophthalmology (ICO) 20 allow a difference in mean visual acuity of 0.05 log units to mention a set of optotypes comparable with Landolt rings.…”

“…8 Just as Xiong et al 11 did not find a significant difference between Helvetica and Times Roman for reading acuity and reading speed, we did not find a significant difference in reading acuity or reading speed in our earlier study involving participants with healthy eyes who read RADNER Reading Charts printed in Times New Roman and Helvetica that had been equalised in print size. 19 The RADNER Reading Charts use single sentences consisting of a main clause/ relative clause construction. However, in geometrically progressing reading charts, longer paragraphs can also be used.…”

“…However, we cannot be certain that our results can be generalised beyond this specific print size, as we had previously shown for single sentences. 19 For calibrating visual acuity results obtained with distance acuity charts using optotypes other than the Landolt ring in a psychophysical study, ISO/TR 19498:2015 and the standard of the International Council of Ophthalmology (ICO) 20 allow a difference in mean visual acuity of 0.05 log units to mention a set of optotypes comparable with Landolt rings. Since reading acuity and reading speed obtained with the RADNER Reading Charts were found to be equal or highly similar for Times New Roman and Helvetica in our previous study, 19 it seems reasonable to assume that the limits given in ISO/TR 19498:2015 and the ICO standard 20 for the comparability of optotypes will also be met by paragraphs of about the same length as those used in the present study, when such paragraphs are applied to comparisons of Times New Roman and Helvetica in reading charts.…”

Font Matters: Deciphering the Impact of Font Types on Attention and Working Memory

“…Reading charts in ophthalmology printed in either Helvetica Neue (T1) Roman sans serif (Adobe) or Times New Roman PS Roman serif (Adobe) was used to investigate the effect of font type by Radner et al where there was no statistical significance in reading acuity, reading speed, and other reading parameters [15].…”