Evgenia Kanonidou1, Irene Gottlob, Frank A Proudlock. 1. Ophthalmology Group, University of Leicester, Faculty of Medicine and Biological Sciences, Robert Kilpatrick Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the effect of font size on reading speed and ocular motor performance in strabismic amblyopes during text reading under monocular and binocular viewing conditions. METHODS: Eye movements were recorded at 250 Hz using a head-mounted infrared video eye tracker in 15 strabismic amblyopes and 18 age-matched controls while silently reading paragraphs of text at font sizes equivalent to 1.0 to 0.2 logMAR acuity. Reading under monocular viewing with amblyopic eye/nondominant eye and nonamblyopic/dominant eye was compared to binocular viewing. Mean reading speed; number, amplitude, and direction of saccades; and fixation duration were calculated for each font size and viewing condition. RESULTS: Reading speed was significantly slower in amblyopes compared to controls for all font sizes during monocular reading with the amblyopic eye (P = 0.004), but only for smaller font sizes for reading with the nonamblyopic eye (P = 0.045) and binocularly (P = 0.038). The most significant ocular motor change was that strabismic amblyopes made more saccades per line than controls irrespective of font size and viewing conditions (P < 0.05 for all). There was no significant difference in saccadic amplitudes and fixation duration was only significantly longer in strabismic amblyopes when reading smaller fonts with the amblyopic eye viewing. CONCLUSIONS: Ocular motor deficits exist in strabismic amblyopes during reading even when reading speeds are normal and when visual acuity is not a limiting factor; that is, when reading larger font sizes with nonamblyopic eye viewing and binocular viewing. This suggests that these abnormalities are not related to crowding.
PURPOSE: We investigated the effect of font size on reading speed and ocular motor performance in strabismic amblyopes during text reading under monocular and binocular viewing conditions. METHODS: Eye movements were recorded at 250 Hz using a head-mounted infrared video eye tracker in 15 strabismic amblyopes and 18 age-matched controls while silently reading paragraphs of text at font sizes equivalent to 1.0 to 0.2 logMAR acuity. Reading under monocular viewing with amblyopic eye/nondominant eye and nonamblyopic/dominant eye was compared to binocular viewing. Mean reading speed; number, amplitude, and direction of saccades; and fixation duration were calculated for each font size and viewing condition. RESULTS: Reading speed was significantly slower in amblyopes compared to controls for all font sizes during monocular reading with the amblyopic eye (P = 0.004), but only for smaller font sizes for reading with the nonamblyopic eye (P = 0.045) and binocularly (P = 0.038). The most significant ocular motor change was that strabismic amblyopes made more saccades per line than controls irrespective of font size and viewing conditions (P < 0.05 for all). There was no significant difference in saccadic amplitudes and fixation duration was only significantly longer in strabismic amblyopes when reading smaller fonts with the amblyopic eye viewing. CONCLUSIONS:Ocular motor deficits exist in strabismic amblyopes during reading even when reading speeds are normal and when visual acuity is not a limiting factor; that is, when reading larger font sizes with nonamblyopic eye viewing and binocular viewing. This suggests that these abnormalities are not related to crowding.
Entities:
Keywords:
amblyopia; binocular vision; reading; strabismus; visual development
Authors: Juliana Tessari Dias Rohr; Cassiano Rodrigues Isaac; Adriano de Almeida de Lima; Ana Garcia; Procópio Miguel Dos Santos; Maria Clotilde Henriques Tavares Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 3.473
Authors: Eileen E Birch; Yolanda S Castañeda; Christina S Cheng-Patel; Sarah E Morale; Krista R Kelly; Cynthia L Beauchamp; Ann Webber Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Krista R Kelly; Reed M Jost; Angie De La Cruz; Lori Dao; Cynthia L Beauchamp; David Stager; Eileen E Birch Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 1.220