Literature DB >> 25187253

Sensory factors limiting horizontal and vertical visual span for letter recognition.

Deyue Yu1, Gordon E Legge2, Gunther Wagoner2, Susana T L Chung3.   

Abstract

Reading speed for English text is slower for text oriented vertically than horizontally. Yu, Park, Gerold, and Legge (2010) showed that slower reading of vertical text is associated with a smaller visual span (the number of letters recognized with high accuracy without moving the eyes). Three possible sensory determinants of the size of the visual span are: resolution (decreasing acuity at letter positions farther from the midline), mislocations (uncertainty about the relative position of letters in strings), and crowding (interference from flanking letters in recognizing the target letter). In the present study, we asked which of these factors is most important in determining the size of the visual span, and likely in turn in determining the horizontal/vertical difference in reading when letter size is above the critical print size for reading. We used a decomposition analysis to represent constraints due to resolution, mislocations, and crowding as losses in information transmitted (in bits) about letter recognition. Across vertical and horizontal conditions, crowding accounted for 75% of the loss in information, mislocations accounted for 19% of the loss, and declining acuity away from fixation accounted for only 6%. We conclude that crowding is the major factor limiting the size of the visual span, and that the horizontal/vertical difference in the size of the visual span is associated with stronger crowding along the vertical midline.
© 2014 ARVO.

Entities:  

Keywords:  acuity; crowding; mislocation; reading; vertical text; visual span

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25187253      PMCID: PMC4527716          DOI: 10.1167/14.6.3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  34 in total

1.  VISUAL RESOLUTION AND CONTOUR INTERACTION.

Authors:  M C FLOM; F W WEYMOUTH; D KAHNEMAN
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am       Date:  1963-09

2.  Crowding is unlike ordinary masking: distinguishing feature integration from detection.

Authors:  Denis G Pelli; Melanie Palomares; Najib J Majaj
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2004-12-30       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Crowding, feature integration, and two kinds of "attention".

Authors:  Endel Põder
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2006-02-21       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Attentional resolution and the locus of visual awareness.

Authors:  S He; P Cavanagh; J Intriligator
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1996-09-26       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Relative roles of resolution and spatial interference in foveal and peripheral vision.

Authors:  K Latham; D Whitaker
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

7.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies.

Authors:  D G Pelli
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

8.  Contrast sensitivity for letter and grating targets under various stimulus conditions.

Authors:  P R Herse; H E Bedell
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 1.973

9.  Peripheral visual acuity: Th. Wertheim.

Authors:  T Wertheim
Journal:  Am J Optom Physiol Opt       Date:  1980-12

Review 10.  Mr. Chips: an ideal-observer model of reading.

Authors:  G E Legge; T S Klitz; B S Tjan
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 8.934

View more
  15 in total

1.  Comparing the visual spans for faces and letters.

Authors:  Yingchen He; Jennifer M Scholz; Rachel Gage; Christopher S Kallie; Tingting Liu; Gordon E Legge
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Slow Reading in Glaucoma: Is it due to the Shrinking Visual Span in Central Vision?

Authors:  MiYoung Kwon; Rong Liu; Bhavika N Patel; Christopher Girkin
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Assessing reading performance in the periphery with a Bayesian adaptive approach: The qReading method.

Authors:  Timothy G Shepard; Fang Hou; Peter J Bex; Luis A Lesmes; Zhong-Lin Lu; Deyue Yu
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Korean reading speed: Effects of print size and retinal eccentricity.

Authors:  Yingchen He; Sori Baek; Gordon E Legge
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Training peripheral vision to read: Reducing crowding through an adaptive training method.

Authors:  Allison Jean Treleaven; Deyue Yu
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Effects of Temporal Modulation on Crowding, Visual Span, and Reading.

Authors:  Caroline Haberthy; Deyue Yu
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.973

7.  Age-related changes in crowding and reading speed.

Authors:  Rong Liu; Bhavika N Patel; MiYoung Kwon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Aging and the optimal viewing position effect in visual word recognition: Evidence from English.

Authors:  Lin Li; Sha Li; Jingxin Wang; Victoria A McGowan; Pingping Liu; Timothy R Jordan; Kevin B Paterson
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2017-04-13

9.  A New Font, Specifically Designed for Peripheral Vision, Improves Peripheral Letter and Word Recognition, but Not Eye-Mediated Reading Performance.

Authors:  Jean-Baptiste Bernard; Carlos Aguilar; Eric Castet
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The crowding factor method applied to parafoveal vision.

Authors:  Saeideh Ghahghaei; Laura Walker
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 2.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.