Varshini Varadaraj1, Stephen Lesche1, Pradeep Y Ramulu1, Bonnielin K Swenor2. 1. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: bswenor@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) on short out-loud and sustained silent reading speeds, and reading comprehension. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional. METHODS: Setting: Wilmer Eye Institute. POPULATION: Literate, native-English speakers with and without AMD. AMD participants had better-eye visual acuity (VA) <20/32 and >20/100, while controls had binocular VA >20/32. PROCEDURES: MNRead was used to assess short-duration out-loud reading speed. Sustained silent reading test was used to evaluate sustained silent reading speeds, while reading comprehension was assessed based on silent reading test text. OUTCOME MEASURES: MNRead maximum reading speed, sustained-silent reading speed, and comprehension score. RESULTS: Analyses included 24 AMD patients and 22 controls. In age-adjusted regressions, AMD participants, compared to controls, read 46 words per minute (wpm) slower on MNRead (95% confidence interval [CI]: -66, -26, P < .001), but there was no difference in sustained reading speeds between groups (β = 0.99, 95% CI: -41.8, 43.8, P = .96). In other models, there was a decrement of 12.6 wpm on MNRead per 0.1 worsening logMAR (95% CI: -18.7, -6.6, P < .001), but VA was not associated with a decrement in sustained reading speed (β = -10.1, 95% CI: -22.4, 2.1, P = .10). However, AMD participants had substantially lower comprehension scores than controls (53% vs 85% correct, P < .001), and each 1-line VA decrement was associated with 5.9% lower comprehension score (95% CI: -9.1, -2.7, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: AMD patients read slower than controls when forced to read out loud. When asked to read silently over a longer duration, both groups read at similar speeds, though AMD patients demonstrated substantially lower comprehension scores, suggesting that they chose to sacrifice comprehension for speed.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) on short out-loud and sustained silent reading speeds, and reading comprehension. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional. METHODS: Setting: Wilmer Eye Institute. POPULATION: Literate, native-English speakers with and without AMD. AMDparticipants had better-eye visual acuity (VA) <20/32 and >20/100, while controls had binocular VA >20/32. PROCEDURES: MNRead was used to assess short-duration out-loud reading speed. Sustained silent reading test was used to evaluate sustained silent reading speeds, while reading comprehension was assessed based on silent reading test text. OUTCOME MEASURES: MNRead maximum reading speed, sustained-silent reading speed, and comprehension score. RESULTS: Analyses included 24 AMDpatients and 22 controls. In age-adjusted regressions, AMDparticipants, compared to controls, read 46 words per minute (wpm) slower on MNRead (95% confidence interval [CI]: -66, -26, P < .001), but there was no difference in sustained reading speeds between groups (β = 0.99, 95% CI: -41.8, 43.8, P = .96). In other models, there was a decrement of 12.6 wpm on MNRead per 0.1 worsening logMAR (95% CI: -18.7, -6.6, P < .001), but VA was not associated with a decrement in sustained reading speed (β = -10.1, 95% CI: -22.4, 2.1, P = .10). However, AMDparticipants had substantially lower comprehension scores than controls (53% vs 85% correct, P < .001), and each 1-line VA decrement was associated with 5.9% lower comprehension score (95% CI: -9.1, -2.7, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS:AMDpatients read slower than controls when forced to read out loud. When asked to read silently over a longer duration, both groups read at similar speeds, though AMDpatients demonstrated substantially lower comprehension scores, suggesting that they chose to sacrifice comprehension for speed.
Authors: Evelyn P Semenov; Rebecca Sheplock; Alejandro J Roman; David B McGuigan; Malgorzata Swider; Artur V Cideciyan; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Samantha Sze-Yee Lee; Gareth Lingham; Seyhan Yazar; Paul G Sanfilippo; Jason Charng; Fred K Chen; Alex W Hewitt; Fletcher Ng; Christopher Hammond; Leon M Straker; Peter R Eastwood; Stuart MacGregor; Kathryn A Rose; Robyn M Lucas; Jeremy A Guggenheim; Seang-Mei Saw; Minas T Coroneo; Mingguang He; David A Mackey Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Susanne G Pondorfer; Manuel Heinemann; Maximilian W M Wintergerst; Maximilian Pfau; Annika L Strömer; Frank G Holz; Robert P Finger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Divya Narayanan; John Rodriguez; Garrick Wallstrom; Donna Welch; Matthew Chapin; Paul Arrigg; Mark Abelson Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 2.209