Bowers A R, Lovie-Kitchin J E, Woods R L
Department of Vision Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Optom Vis Sci. 2001 May;78(5):325-34. doi: 10.1097/00006324-200105000-00016.
Reading rate has been the main performance measure in studies that have compared reading with large print and optical magnifiers; eye movement characteristics have not been considered. We compared both eye movement characteristics and reading rates for subjects with macular disease reading without and with a range of low-vision devices.
Silent reading rate and eye movement characteristics for text passages at critical print size of 21 subjects aged 14 to 88 years with macular disease were measured with and without their preferred low-vision device. Saccadic frequency was determined from a sequencing task comprising five letters each separated by 5 degrees. Eye movements were recorded using an infrared limbal reflection system.
There were no significant differences in reading rate, fixation durations, saccade numbers per word, or percent retrace time when using a low-vision device compared with reading without a low-vision device. The percentage of regressions was, however, lower with the low-vision device. Saccadic frequency in the sequencing task was predictive of reading performance with and without a low-vision device.
When reading at critical print size, in terms of reading rate or saccades per word, there was no advantage to using large print over an optical low-vision device.
在比较大字印刷品阅读与光学放大镜阅读的研究中，阅读速度一直是主要的性能指标；而眼动特征未被考虑。我们比较了黄斑疾病患者在不使用和使用一系列低视力设备时的眼动特征和阅读速度。
对21名年龄在14至88岁之间患有黄斑疾病的受试者，在使用和不使用其首选低视力设备的情况下，测量临界印刷字号文本段落的默读速度和眼动特征。扫视频率由一个包含五个字母、每个字母间隔5度的排序任务确定。使用红外角膜反射系统记录眼动。
与不使用低视力设备阅读相比，使用低视力设备时，阅读速度、注视持续时间、每个单词的扫视次数或回扫时间百分比均无显著差异。然而，使用低视力设备时回归的百分比更低。排序任务中的扫视频率可预测使用和不使用低视力设备时的阅读表现。
在临界印刷字号下阅读时，就阅读速度或每个单词的扫视次数而言，使用大字印刷品并不比使用光学低视力设备更具优势。
