The Impact of Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects on Speed and Eye Movements during Reading:

Ai-Hong Chen; Shauqiah Jufri; Nathan Congdon

doi:10.33192/Smj.2021.03

Authors

Ai-Hong Chen Optometry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Selangor, Kampus Puncak Alam, Malaysia http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4568-0495
Shauqiah Jufri Optometry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Selangor, Kampus Puncak Alam, Malaysia http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1843-4053
Nathan Congdon Translational Research for Equitable Eyecare (TREE) Center, Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, United Kingdom http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9866-3416

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33192/Smj.2021.03

Keywords:

glaucoma, visual field defect, reading speed, eye movement

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the link between glaucomatous visual field defects and reading performance by assessing reading speed and eye movements in reading.
Methods: Eight glaucoma patients and 8 normal-sighted participants were recruited using convenience sampling in this cross-sectional study. The visual field was evaluated using the Humphrey Matrix 24-2. Reading speed was assessed in words per minute using Buari-Chen Malay Reading Chart and the SAH reading passages compendium. Eye movements in reading were recorded using 3D video-oculography.
Results: Glaucoma and control groups displayed significant differences in reading speed (t=3.12; p<0.05) and fixation (t=-2.59; p<0.05). Reading speed was significantly correlated with the total defect areas (r =+0.62, p<0.05) and the types of glaucomatous field defects (Analysis of Variance, ANOVA: F =4.65, p<0.05). No correlation was apparent in eye movements (p>0.05).
Conclusion: The association of defect areas and types with reading speed but not with eye movements might suggest a different coping strategy between eye movement adjustment and reading adaptation in response to visual field defects. Significant association with fixation but not with saccades might indicate that the disengaged and engaged mechanisms of visual attention are affected differently by visual field defects.

References

1. Pammer K, Hansen PC, Kringelbach ML, Holliday IE, Barnes G, Hillebrand A et al. Visual word recognition: the first half second. NeuroImage 2004;22:1819–25.
2. Singleton C, Henderson LM. Visual factors in reading. London Rev of Education 2006;4:89–98.
3. Maharajah KR, Tet CM, Yaacob A, Tajudin LSA, Foster PJ. Modified Bahasa Malaysia version of VF-14 questionnaire: assessing the impact of glaucoma in rural area of Malaysia. Clin and Exp Ophthalmol 2008;36:222–31.
4. Ramulu P. Glaucoma and disability: which tasks are affected, and at what stage of disease? Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2009;20:92–8.
5. Lester M, Zingirin M. Quality of life in patients with early, moderate and advanced glaucoma. Eye 2002;16:44–9.
6. Freeman EE, Muñoz B, West SK, Jampel HD, Friedman DS. Glaucoma and quality of life: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Ophthalmol 2008; 115:233–8.
7. Murata H, Hirasawa H, Aoyama Y, Sugisaki K, Araie M, Mayama C et al. Identifying areas of the visual field important for quality of life in patients with glaucoma. PLOS ONE 2013;8:e58695.
8. Ishii M, Seki M, Harigai R, Abe H, Fukuchi T. Reading performance in patients with glaucoma evaluated using the MNREAD charts. Jpn J of Ophthalmol 2013;57:471-4.
9. Ramulu PY, West SK, Munoz B, Jampel HD, Friedman DS. Glaucoma and reading speed. Archives of Ophthalmol 2009;127:82–7.
10. Roberts K, Haymes S, Leblanc R, Nicolela M, Chauhan B, Artes P. Contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, reading speed and macular visual field damage in glaucoma. Investig Ophthalmol & Vis Sci 2005;46:4665.
11. Tabrett DR, Latham K. Important areas of the central binocular visual field for daily functioning in the visually impaired. Ophthalmic and Physiological Opt 2012;32:156–63.
12. Altangerel U, Spaeth GL, Steinmann WC. Assessment of Function Related to Vision (AFREV). Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2006;13:67–80.
13. Burton R, Crabb DP, Smith ND, Glen FC, Garway-Heath DF. Glaucoma and reading: exploring the effects of contrast lowering of text. Optom and Vis Sci 2012; 89:1282–7.
14. Burton R, Saunders LJ, Crabb DP. Areas of the visual field important during reading in patients with glaucoma. Jpn J of Ophthalmol 2015;59:94-102.
15. Whittaker SG, Lovie-Kitchin J. Visual requirements for reading. Optom and Vis Sci 1993;70:54–65.
16. Burton R, Smith ND, Crabb DP. Eye movements and reading in glaucoma: observations on patients with advanced visual field loss. Graefes Archive for Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2014;252:1621–30.
17. Krieber M, Bartl-Pokorny K, Pokorny F, Einspieler C, Langmann A, Korner C et al. The Relation between reading skills and eye movement patterns in adolescent readers: evidence from a regular orthography. PLOS ONE 2016;11:e145934.
18. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 1998;124:372–422.
19. Jampel H, Friedman D, Quigley H, Miller R. Correlation of the binocular visual field with patient assessment of vision. Investigative Ophthalmol and Vis Sci 2002;43:1059–67.
20. Cummings R, Rubin G. Reading speed and saccadic eye movements with an artificial paracentral scotoma. Investigative Ophthalmol & Vis Sci 1993;34:1318.
21. Buari NH, Chen AH. Buari-Chen Malay Reading Chart (BCMRC): Contextual Sentence and Random Words 2-in-1 Design in Malay. Pertanika J of Sci and Technology 2017;25:135–50.
22. Chen AH, Buari NH, Jufri S. The development of SAH reading passage compendium: A tool for the assessment of reading performance related to visual function. Int Educ Stud 2017;10:30–7.
23. Legge GE, Pelli DG, Rubin GS, Schleske MM. Psychophysics of reading:I. Normal vision. Vis Res 1985;25:239–52.
24. Goldberg I. Visual disabilities and quality of life in glaucoma patients. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2004;32:18-20 .
25. Lek J, Vingrys A, Mckendrick A. Rapid contrast adaptation in glaucoma and aging. Investigative Ophthalmol and Vis Sci 2014;55:3171–8.
26. Rubin GS, Legge GE. Psychophysics of reading. VI--The role of contrast in low vision. Vis Res 1989;29:79–91.
27. Bennett E, Diamond M, Krech D, Rosenzweig M. Chemical and anatomical plasticity of the brain. Sci 1964;146:610–9.
28. Rakic P. Neurogenesis in adult primate neocortex: an evaluation of the evidence. Nat Rev Neurosci 2002;3:65–71.
29. Livingston LB. Brain mechanisms in conditioning and learning. Neurosci Res Program Bulletin 1966;4:349–54.
30. Sasmita A, Kuruvilla J, Ling AP. Harnessing neuroplasticity: modern approaches and clinical future. The Int J of Neurosci 2018;128:1061–77.
31. Voss P, Thomas ME, Cisneros-Franco JM, Villers-Sidani E. Dynamic Brains and the Changing Rules of Neuroplasticity: Implications for Learning and Recovery. Front Psychol 2017;8:1–11.
32. Robert F, Benjamin T. New insights into amblyopia: binocular therapy and noninvasive brain stimulation. J of Am Assoc for Pediatric Ophthalmol and Strabismus 2013;17:89–93.
33. Mueller I, Mast H, Sabel BA. Recovery of visual field defects: a large clinical observational study using vision restoration therapy. Restor Neurology and Neurosci 2007;25:563–72.
34. Mishra RK. Attention in sentence processing: a review. Psychological Stud 2013;58:308–17.
35. Rayner K, Well AD, Pollatsek A. Asymmetry of the effective visual field in reading. Percept and Psychophys 1980;27:537.
36. Moats LC, Tolman C. Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling (LETRS), Module 1: the challenges of learning to read, 2nd ed. Longmont: Sopris West, 2009.
37. Weekley TW. The impact of word-study intervention strategies on students' measures of reading comprehension and fluency. Elecron Theses and Diss 2017. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/493. Accessed 18 Apr 2020.
38. Sabel BA, Gudlin J. Vision restoration training for glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol 2014;132:381–9.
39. Proudlock FA, Shekhar H, Gottlob I. Coordination of eye and head movements during reading. Investigative Ophthalmol & Vis Sci 2003;44:2991–8.
40. Fisher B, Breitmeyer BG. Mechanisms of visual attention revealed by saccadic eye movements. Neuropsychologia 1987;25:73–83.