Comparing performance on the MNREAD iPad application with the MNREAD acuity chart

Aurélie Calabrèse, Long To, Yingchen He, Elizabeth Berkholtz, Paymon Rafian, Gordon E Legge, Aurélie Calabrèse, Long To, Yingchen He, Elizabeth Berkholtz, Paymon Rafian, Gordon E Legge

Abstract

Our purpose was to compare reading performance measured with the MNREAD Acuity Chart and an iPad application (app) version of the same test for both normally sighted and low-vision participants. Our methods included 165 participants with normal vision and 43 participants with low vision tested on the standard printed MNREAD and on the iPad app version of the test. Maximum Reading Speed, Critical Print Size, Reading Acuity, and Reading Accessibility Index were compared using linear mixed-effects models to identify any potential differences in test performance between the printed chart and the iPad app. Our results showed the following: For normal vision, chart and iPad yield similar estimates of Critical Print Size and Reading Acuity. The iPad provides significantly slower estimates of Maximum Reading Speed than the chart, with a greater difference for faster readers. The difference was on average 3% at 100 words per minute (wpm), 6% at 150 wpm, 9% at 200 wpm, and 12% at 250 wpm. For low vision, Maximum Reading Speed, Reading Accessibility Index, and Critical Print Size are equivalent on the iPad and chart. Only the Reading Acuity is significantly smaller (I. E., better) when measured on the digital version of the test, but by only 0.03 logMAR (p = 0.013). Our conclusions were that, overall, MNREAD parameters measured with the printed chart and the iPad app are very similar. The difference found in Maximum Reading Speed for the normally sighted participants can be explained by differences in the method for timing the reading trials.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Printed MNREAD chart. (A) Front and back of the MNREAD acuity chart printed in black-on-white (regular polarity); (B) Example MNREAD curve showing the four MNREAD parameters—Maximum Reading Speed (MRS—red star) is 225 words/min, with Critical Print Size (CPS—green diamond), and Reading Acuity (RA—blue triangle) of 0.0 and −0.2 logMAR, respectively. The Reading Accessibility Index (ACC) is 1.12.
Figure 2
Figure 2
MNREAD testing sequence using the iPad app. (A) Preparation screen displayed before each sentence; (B) After the experimenter clicks the “GO” button, the first sentence is displayed in the center of the screen, launching the time recording; (C) Once the participant is done reading, a simple click will stop the trial and record the reading time. A score screen appears, allowing the experimenter to enter the number of errors and launch the next trial; (D) When reading becomes impossible, the test is stopped and the app displays the MNREAD data plot and parameter estimates.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Experimental protocol for Experiments 1 and 2.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Agreement between the Maximum Reading Speed (MRS) measured with the chart and the iPad app. (A) shows data from Experiment 1 (normally sighted participants). (B) shows data from Experiment 2 (low-vision participants). Bland-Altman plots show the difference between measured MRS (iPad-Chart) plotted against the mean MRS. The red dashed lines represent the average difference. The blue dashed lines represent the agreement limits (±1.96 SD). The dotted lines show the 95% CI limits. Top and right histograms show the data distribution along the x and y axis respectively. Tables summarize the chart and iPad average values as well as their difference (as given by the LME models).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Percentage difference in MRS between chart and iPad as a function of MRS as measured on the chart. As shown by the regression lines, the percentage difference between the two measures increases when the MRS (as measured on the chart) increases.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Agreement between the Reading Accessibility Index (ACC) measured with the chart and the iPad app. (A) shows data from Experiment 1 (normally sighted participants). (B) shows data from Experiment 2 (low-vision participants). Bland-Altman plots show the difference between measured ACC (iPad-Chart) plotted against the mean ACC. The red dashed lines represent the average difference. The blue dashed lines represent the agreement limits (±1.96 SD). The dotted lines show the 95% CI limits. Top and right histograms show the data distribution along the x and y axis respectively. Tables summarize the chart and iPad average values as well as their difference (as given by the LME models).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Agreement between the Critical Print Size (CPS) measured with the chart and the iPad app. (A) shows data from Experiment 1 (normally sighted participants). (B) shows data from Experiment 2 (low-vision participants). Bland-Altman plots show the difference between measured CPS (iPad – Chart) plotted against the mean CPS. To avoid overlapping data points, similar CPS values are grouped and shown with a size code in (A). The red dashed lines represent the average difference. The blue dashed lines represent the agreement limits (±1.96 SD). The dotted lines show the 95% CI limits. Top and right histograms show the data distribution along the x and y axis respectively. Tables summarize the chart and iPad average values as well as their difference (as given by the LME models).
Figure 8
Figure 8
Agreement between the Reading Acuity (RA) measured with the chart and the iPad app. (A) shows data from Experiment 1 (normally sighted participants). (B) shows data from Experiment 2 (low-vision participants). Bland-Altman plots show the difference between measured RA (iPad – Chart) plotted against the mean RA. The red dashed lines represent the average difference. The blue dashed lines represent the agreement limits (±1.96 SD). The dotted lines show the 95% confidence interval limits. Top and right histograms show the data distribution along the x and y axis respectively. Tables summarize the chart and iPad average values as well as their difference (as given by the LME models).

References

    1. Bailey, I. L., Lovie, J. E.. (1980). The design and use of a new near-vision chart. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, 57, 378– 387.
    1. Baldasare, J., Watson, G. R., Whittaker, S. G., Miller-Shaffer, H.. (1986). The development and evaluation of a reading test for low vision individuals with macular loss. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 80, 785– 789.
    1. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S.. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1– 48.
    1. Berger, E. (2010). The iPad: Gadget or medical godsend? Annals of Emergency Medicine, 56, A21– A22.
    1. Binns, A. M., Bunce, C., Dickinson, C., Harper, R., Tudor-Edwards, R., Woodhouse, M.,… Margrain, T. H.. (2012). How effective is low vision service provision? A systematic review. Survey of Ophthalmology, 57, 34– 65.
    1. Black, J. M., Jacobs, R. J., Phillips, G., Chen, L., Tan, E., Tran, A., Thompson, B.. (2013). An assessment of the iPad as a testing platform for distance visual acuity in adults. BMJ Open, 3 6, e002730, doi:.
    1. Calabrèse, A., Cheong, A. M. Y., Cheung, S.-H., He, Y., Kwon, M., Mansfield, J. S.,… Legge, G. E.. (2016). Baseline MNREAD measures for normally sighted subjects from childhood to old age. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 57 8, 3836– 3843, doi:. [] []
    1. Calabrèse, A., Mansfield, J. S., Legge, G. E.. (2017). mnreadR, an R package to analyze MNREAD data. Retrieved from
    1. Calabrèse, A., Owsley, C., McGwin, G., Legge, G. E.. (2016). Development of a reading accessibility index using the MNREAD acuity chart. JAMA Ophthalmology, 134, 398– 405.
    1. Colenbrander, A., Fletcher, D. C.. (2005). The mixed contrast reading card, a new screening test for contrast sensitivity. International Congress Series 1282, 492– 497.
    1. Dexl, A. K., Schlögel, H., Wolfbauer, M., Grabner, G.. (2010). Device for improving quantification of reading acuity and reading speed. Journal of Refractive Surgery, 26, 682– 688.
    1. Hahn, G. A., Penka, D., Gehrlich, C., Messias, A., Weismann, M., Hyvarinen, L.,… Trauzettel-Klosinski, S.. (2006). New standardised texts for assessing reading performance in four European languages. The British Journal of Ophthalmology, 90, 480– 484.
    1. Hazel, C. A., Petre, K. L., Armstrong, R. A., Benson, M. T., Frost, N. A.. (2000). Visual function and subjective quality of life compared in subjects with acquired macular disease. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 41, 1309– 1315. [] []
    1. Jonker, S. M. R., Bauer, N. J. C., Makhotkina, N. Y., Berendschot, T. T. J. M., van den Biggelaar, F. J. H. M., Nuijts, R. M. M. A.. (2015). Comparison of a trifocal intraocular lens with a +3.0 D bifocal IOL: Results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 41, 1631– 1640.
    1. Kang, Y.-Y., Wang, M.-J. J., Lin, R.. (2009). Usability evaluation of E-books. Displays, 30, 49– 52.
    1. Köpper, M., Mayr, S., Buchner, A.. (2016). Reading from computer screen versus reading from paper: Does it still make a difference? Ergonomics, 59, 615– 632.
    1. Legge, G. E. (2007). Psychophysics of reading in normal and low vision. Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    1. Livingstone, I. A. T., Tarbert, C. M., Giardini, M. E., Bastawrous, A., Middleton, D., Hamilton, R.. (2016). Photometric compliance of tablet screens and retro-illuminated acuity charts as visual acuity measurement devices. PLoS One, 11, e0150676.
    1. Maaijwee, K., Mulder, P., Radner, W., Van Meurs, J. C.. (2008). Reliability testing of the Dutch version of the Radner Reading Charts. Optometry and Vision Science 85, 353– 358.
    1. MacKeben, M., Nair, U. K. W., Walker, L. L., Fletcher, D. C.. (2015). Random word recognition chart helps scotoma assessment in low vision. Optometry and Vision Science : Official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 92, 421– 428.
    1. Mahmood, S., Roberts, S. A., Aslam, T. M., Parkes, J., Barugh, K., Bishop, P. N.,& GMAN Study Group . (2015). Routine versus as-needed Bevacizumab with 12-weekly assessment intervals for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 92-week results of the GMAN trial. Ophthalmology, 122, 1348– 1355.
    1. Mansfield, J. S., Ahn, S. J., Legge, G. E., Luebker, A.. (1993). A new reading-acuity chart for normal and low vision. Ophthalmic and Visual Optics/Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System Technical Digest, 3, 232– 235.
    1. Mayr, S., Köpper, M., Buchner, A.. (2017). Effects of high pixel density on reading comprehension, proofreading performance, mood state, and physical discomfort. Displays, 48, 41– 49.
    1. McClure, M. E., Hart, P. M., Jackson, A. J., Stevenson, M. R., Chakravarthy, U.. (2000). Macular degeneration: Do conventional measurements of impaired visual function equate with visual disability? The British Journal of Ophthalmology, 84, 244– 250.
    1. Nielsen, J. (2010). iPad and Kindle reading speeds. Jacob Nielsen's Alertbox. Retrieved from
    1. Noyes, J. M., Garland, K. J.. (2008). Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent? Ergonomics, 51, 1352– 1375.
    1. Patel, P. J., Chen, F. K., Da Cruz, L., Rubin, G. S., Tufail, A.. (2011). Test-retest variability of reading performance metrics using MNREAD in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 52, 3854– 3859, doi:. [] []
    1. Radner, W. (2017). Reading charts in ophthalmology. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 255, 1465– 1482.
    1. Radner, W., Obermayer, W., Richter-Mueksch, S., Willinger, U., Velikay-Parel, M., Eisenwort, B.. (2002). The validity and reliability of short German sentences for measuring reading speed. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 240, 461– 467.
    1. Ramulu, P. Y., Swenor, B. K., Jefferys, J. L., Rubin, G. S.. (2013). Description and validation of a test to evaluate sustained silent reading. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 54, 673– 680, doi:. [] []
    1. Rubin, G. S. (2013). Measuring reading performance. Vision Research, 90, 43– 51.
    1. Stelmack, J. A., Tang, X. C., Wei, Y., Wilcox, D. T., Morand, T., Brahm, K.,hellip; LOVIT II Study Group . (2017). Outcomes of the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Intervention Trial II (LOVIT II): A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmology, 135, 96– 104.
    1. Subramanian, A., Pardhan, S.. (2006). The repeatability of MNREAD acuity charts and variability at different test distances. Optometry and Vision Science: Official Publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 83, 572– 576.
    1. Subramanian, A., Pardhan, S.. (2009). Repeatability of reading ability indices in subjects with impaired vision. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 50, 3643– 3647, doi:. [] []
    1. Tang, W., Zhuang, S., Liu, G.. (2014). Comparison of visual function after multifocal and accommodative IOL implantation. Eye Science, 29, 95– 99.
    1. Trauzettel-Klosinski, S., Dietz, K.,& IReST Study Group . (2012). Standardized assessment of reading performance: The New International Reading Speed Texts IReST. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 53, 5452– 5461, doi:. [] []
    1. Virgili, G., Cordaro, C., Bigoni, A., Crovato, S., Cecchini, P., Menchini, U.. (2004). Reading acuity in children: Evaluation and reliability using MNREAD charts. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 45, 3349– 3354, doi:. [] []
    1. Xu, R., Bradley, A.. (2015). IURead: A new computer-based reading test. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 35, 500– 513.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться