OBJECTIVE: This study examines the reading performance of patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) using 4 readily available fonts. DESIGN: Experimental study. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four patients with bilateral AMD participated. METHODS: Reading performance (reading acuity, critical print size, and maximum reading speed) was measured for all patients, using 4 versions of the MNRead charts. These charts were printed in the following fonts: Times New Roman (serif, proportionally spaced), Arial (sans serif, proportionally spaced), Courier (serif, mono spaced), and Andale Mono (sans serif, mono spaced). RESULTS: Reading acuity was significantly better on the Courier chart (0.58±0.21 logMAR) and significantly worse on the Arial chart (0.69±0.20 logMAR) than on any of the other charts (P<0.05). A larger proportion of patients were able to read≥1 sentences on the Courier chart than on any of the other charts. Reading speed dropped below the limit for fluent reading first with the Arial chart. There was no difference in maximum reading speed with the 4 fonts, and differences in critical print size failed to reach significance (P = 0.052). CONCLUSIONS: Font has an effect on the reading performance of patients with AMD at print sizes close to their reading acuity. Courier was the most advantageous and Arial the worst font for reading smaller print. This is contrary to the advice given by agencies for the blind.
OBJECTIVE: This study examines the reading performance of patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) using 4 readily available fonts. DESIGN: Experimental study. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four patients with bilateral AMD participated. METHODS: Reading performance (reading acuity, critical print size, and maximum reading speed) was measured for all patients, using 4 versions of the MNRead charts. These charts were printed in the following fonts: Times New Roman (serif, proportionally spaced), Arial (sans serif, proportionally spaced), Courier (serif, mono spaced), and Andale Mono (sans serif, mono spaced). RESULTS: Reading acuity was significantly better on the Courier chart (0.58±0.21 logMAR) and significantly worse on the Arial chart (0.69±0.20 logMAR) than on any of the other charts (P<0.05). A larger proportion of patients were able to read≥1 sentences on the Courier chart than on any of the other charts. Reading speed dropped below the limit for fluent reading first with the Arial chart. There was no difference in maximum reading speed with the 4 fonts, and differences in critical print size failed to reach significance (P = 0.052). CONCLUSIONS: Font has an effect on the reading performance of patients with AMD at print sizes close to their reading acuity. Courier was the most advantageous and Arial the worst font for reading smaller print. This is contrary to the advice given by agencies for the blind.
Authors: Arun Kumar Krishnan; Hope M Queener; Scott B Stevenson; Julia S Benoit; Harold E Bedell Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Ying-Zi Xiong; Ethan A Lorsung; John Stephen Mansfield; Charles Bigelow; Gordon E Legge Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 4.799