Visual-Field Restrictions in Cases of Reading Disability

Abstract

23 children who were attending a summer camp for children with learning disabilities and who demonstrated a reading disability at least one grade level below that expected on the basis of chronological age were selected for study. Peripheral visual-field limits were tested for both nasal and temporal fields in both eyes. Testing also took place for central visual field deficits.With very few exceptions the visual field limits were in the range of the accepted norm. 10 randomly selected Ss were retested and the results proved to be reliable as there were no significant differences on first and second testing. It was suggested that an additional study is required which should include a group of children with no reading disabilities. Earnes (1935), in an investigation of restrictions of the visual field, found that "educational disability cases present smaller fields than 'Normal' or unselected cases." In addition, these differences were greater in the left eye. This study was based upon the assumption that visual-field limitations would require more fixations per line and therefore "slower, more mechanical reading." A further study by Eames (1957) supported these results. The present investigation was designed to explore further this apparent relationship between visual-field restrictions and cases of reading disability.Ss were selected from children attending a summer camp held for children with learning disabilities. The children were selected on the basis of two criteria: no S wore corrective lenses; all Ss were at least one grade level below that expected on the basis of age in reading, as determined by testing on the Wide Range Achievement Test (Jastak & Jasmk, 1965).For 23 Ss selected and tested, the mean and standard deviation of age were 11.1 yr. and 1.52 respectively. The mean and standard deviation for grade level of reading as determined by the WRAT were 3.4 and 1.19 respectively. Based upon the age and reading level of the group, these Ss were 2.7 yr. behind in reading (age -"Grade level + 5 " ) . ProcedureAll children were tested to determine peripheral visual field limits in both nasal and temporal fields for both eyes. Testing took place in a dark room and utilized an AIMARK Projection Perimeter with a low intensity white light source of 1 cm. in diameter. The light was introduced well beyond S's peripheral visual limits and slowly moved until S indicated that he could see it. This was done for both nasal and temporal fields in both eyes for a total of three trials each. S's score was the average of these three uials.In addition, each eye was tested for central deficit by introducing the light at randomly selected 5" points between 90"-0"-90".S was expected to respond "yes" if he saw the light or "no" if he did not see it. An additional 10 "checkpoints" were interspersed randomly. N o light was presented at the time of these "checkpoiats" and S was 'The authors wish to thank the executive of the Integra Foundation and the staff of Camp Towhee for their cooperation and support. Thanks are also due to ...

Rotation of mental images and asymmetries in word recognition in disabled readers.

“…It is now possible to reject, with a fair degree of certainty, several proposed explanations of reading disability in otherwise healthy and intelligent children. For instance, reading disability is not related to basic visual-perceptual discrimination (Vellutino, Steger, Harding, & Phillips, 1975), non-verbal paired associates learning (Vellutino, Steger, Kamen, & De Setto, 1975), cerebral dominance for auditory linguistic processing (McKeever & Van Deventer, 1975), developmental delay in lateralization (Kershner, 1978), sensory integration skills (Rudel & Denckla, 1976), peripheral visual field restrictions (Rubino & Minden, 1971), or memory capacity for the semantic and syntactic encodings of reading material (Kolers, 1975).…”