PURPOSE: We evaluated the impact of glaucoma on out-loud and silent reading. METHODS. Glaucoma patients with bilateral visual field (VF) loss and normally-sighted controls had the following parameters measured: speed reading an International Reading Speed Text (IReST) passage out loud, maximum out-loud MNRead chart reading speed, sustained (30 minutes) silent reading speed, and change in reading speed during sustained silent reading. RESULTS: Glaucoma subjects read slower than controls on the IReST (147 vs. 163 words per minute [wpm], P < 0.001), MNRead (172 vs. 186 wpm, P < 0.001), and sustained silent (179 vs. 218 wpm, P < 0.001) tests. In multivariable analyses adjusting for age, race, sex, education, employment, and cognition, IReST and MNRead reading speeds were 12 wpm (6%-7%) slower among glaucoma subjects compared to controls (P < 0.01 for both), while sustained silent reading speed was 16% slower (95% confidence interval [CI] = -24 to -6%, P = 0.002). Each 5 decibel (dB) decrement in better-eye VF mean deviation was associated with 6 wpm slower IReST reading (95% CI = -9 to -3%, P < 0.001), 5 wpm slower MNRead reading (95% CI = -7 to -2%, P < 0.001), and 9% slower sustained silent reading (95% CI = -13 to -6%, P < 0.001). A reading speed decline of 0.5 wpm/min or more over the sustained silent reading period was more common among glaucoma subjects than controls (odds ratio [OR] = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.0-4.9, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Reading speed is slower among glaucoma patients with bilateral VF loss, with the greatest impact present during sustained silent reading. Persons with glaucoma fatigue during silent reading, resulting in slower reading over time.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the impact of glaucoma on out-loud and silent reading. METHODS. Glaucomapatients with bilateral visual field (VF) loss and normally-sighted controls had the following parameters measured: speed reading an International Reading Speed Text (IReST) passage out loud, maximum out-loud MNRead chart reading speed, sustained (30 minutes) silent reading speed, and change in reading speed during sustained silent reading. RESULTS:Glaucoma subjects read slower than controls on the IReST (147 vs. 163 words per minute [wpm], P < 0.001), MNRead (172 vs. 186 wpm, P < 0.001), and sustained silent (179 vs. 218 wpm, P < 0.001) tests. In multivariable analyses adjusting for age, race, sex, education, employment, and cognition, IReST and MNRead reading speeds were 12 wpm (6%-7%) slower among glaucoma subjects compared to controls (P < 0.01 for both), while sustained silent reading speed was 16% slower (95% confidence interval [CI] = -24 to -6%, P = 0.002). Each 5 decibel (dB) decrement in better-eye VF mean deviation was associated with 6 wpm slower IReST reading (95% CI = -9 to -3%, P < 0.001), 5 wpm slower MNRead reading (95% CI = -7 to -2%, P < 0.001), and 9% slower sustained silent reading (95% CI = -13 to -6%, P < 0.001). A reading speed decline of 0.5 wpm/min or more over the sustained silent reading period was more common among glaucoma subjects than controls (odds ratio [OR] = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.0-4.9, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Reading speed is slower among glaucomapatients with bilateral VF loss, with the greatest impact present during sustained silent reading. Persons with glaucoma fatigue during silent reading, resulting in slower reading over time.
Authors: Aimee Teo Broman; Beatriz Munoz; Jorge Rodriguez; Rosario Sanchez; Harry A Quigley; Ronald Klein; Robert Snyder; Sheila K West Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Priya M Mathews; Gary S Rubin; Michael McCloskey; Sherveen Salek; Pradeep Y Ramulu Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Priya M Mathews; Pradeep Y Ramulu; David S Friedman; Canan A Utine; Esen K Akpek Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-05-25 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Angeline M Nguyen; Suzanne W van Landingham; Robert W Massof; Gary S Rubin; Pradeep Y Ramulu Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Anjali M Bhorade; Victoria H Yom; Peggy Barco; Bradley Wilson; Mae Gordon; David Carr Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 5.258