Literature DB >> 25342540

Foveal crowding differs in children and adults.

Yvonne Norgett1, John Siderov1.   

Abstract

We used custom-designed acuity tests to compare the magnitude and extent of crowded letter recognition in children and adults. Visual acuity (logMAR) was measured monocularly in children and adults using five custom-designed letter tests with varying degrees of crowding: single letter, single letter surrounded by four flanking bars, single letter surrounded by four flanking letters, line of five letters surrounded by flanking bars, and line of five letters surrounded by flanking letters. The tests were constructed using Sloan letters and presented on an iPad (Apple Incorporated, Cupertino, CA) at 4 m using a standardized endpoint and instructions. Crowded logMAR was normalized to unflanked logMAR and results were analyzed in three groups: younger children aged 4-6 (n = 32), older children, aged 7-9 (n = 30), and adults (n = 27). Both groups of children showed a greater extent of crowding than the adults. The adult participants showed no difference in performance between single or linear presentation and letter or bar flankers. Letter flankers and linear presentation individually resulted in poorer performance in the younger children p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively (mean normalized logMAR 0.17 in each case) and together had an additive effect (mean 0.24), p < 0.001. Crowding in the older children was adult-like except in the linear presentation with letter flankers, p < 0.001. These results indicate that both target-flanker similarity and linear presentation contribute more to foveal crowding in young children than in adults.
© 2014 ARVO.

Entities:  

Keywords:  children's vision; crowding; visual development

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25342540     DOI: 10.1167/14.12.23

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


  7 in total

1.  Crowding, grouping, and object recognition: A matter of appearance.

Authors:  Michael H Herzog; Bilge Sayim; Vitaly Chicherov; Mauro Manassi
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Do picture-based charts overestimate visual acuity? Comparison of Kay Pictures, Lea Symbols, HOTV and Keeler logMAR charts with Sloan letters in adults and children.

Authors:  Nicola S Anstice; Robert J Jacobs; Samantha K Simkin; Melissa Thomson; Benjamin Thompson; Andrew V Collins
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Crowding can impact both low and high contrast visual acuity measurements.

Authors:  František Pluháček; John Siderov; Ivana Macháčová
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  A Comparison of Foveal and Peripheral Contour Interaction and Crowding.

Authors:  Stephanie M Marten-Ellis; Harold E Bedell
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 2.106

5.  Photometric Compliance of Tablet Screens and Retro-Illuminated Acuity Charts As Visual Acuity Measurement Devices.

Authors:  I A T Livingstone; C M Tarbert; M E Giardini; A Bastawrous; D Middleton; R Hamilton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Neurocognitive Development of the Resolution of Selective Visuo-Spatial Attention: Functional MRI Evidence From Object Tracking.

Authors:  Kerstin Wolf; Elena Galeano Weber; Jasper J F van den Bosch; Steffen Volz; Ulrike Nöth; Ralf Deichmann; Marcus J Naumer; Till Pfeiffer; Christian J Fiebach
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-07-30

7.  Neural sources of letter and Vernier acuity.

Authors:  Elham Barzegaran; Anthony M Norcia
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 4.379

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.