Comparing performance on the MNREAD iPad application with the MNREAD acuity chart.
Comparing performance on the MNREAD iPad application with the MNREAD acuity chart.
复制标题
将MNRead Ipad应用程序上的性能与MNRead Acuity图表进行比较。
DOI：
10.1167/18.1.8
复制
发表时间：
2018-01-01
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Legge GE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Calabrèse A;To L;He Y;Berkholtz E;Rafian P;Legge GE
我们的目的是比较用MNREAD视力表和iPad应用程序版本的相同测试对正常视力和低视力参与者的阅读表现。我们的方法包括165名视力正常的参与者和43名低视力的参与者，在标准打印的MNREAD和iPad应用程序版本的测试中进行测试。使用线性混合效应模型对最大阅读速度、临界打印尺寸、阅读敏锐度和阅读辅助指数进行比较，以确定印刷图表和iPad应用程序在测试性能上的任何潜在差异。我们的结果显示如下：对于正常视力，图表和iPad对临界打印尺寸和阅读敏锐度的估计相似。iPad提供的最大阅读速度估计要比图表慢得多，而对于速度更快的阅读器来说，差异更大。每分钟100个单词时，差异平均为3%，每分钟150个单词时为6%，每分钟200个单词时为9%，每分钟250个单词时为12%。对于弱视人群，iPad和图表上的“最大阅读速度”、“阅读辅助指数”和“关键打印尺寸”相同。在数字版本的测试中，只有阅读敏锐度显着更小（即更好），但只有0.03 logMAR （p = 0.013）。我们的结论是，总体而言，用打印图表和iPad应用程序测量的MNREAD参数非常相似。正常视力的参与者在最大阅读速度上的差异可以用阅读试验计时方法的差异来解释。
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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Livingstone IA;Tarbert CM;Giardini ME;Bastawrous A;Middleton D;Hamilton R
通讯作者：
Hamilton R
影响因子：
8.1
作者：
Calabrese, Aurelie;Owsley, Cynthia;Legge, Gordon E.
通讯作者：
Legge, Gordon E.
影响因子：
1.4
作者：
Maajwee, Kristel;Mulder, Paul;Van Meurs, Jan C.
通讯作者：
Van Meurs, Jan C.
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Patel, Praveen J.;Chen, Fred K.;Tufail, Adnan
通讯作者：
Tufail, Adnan
DOI：
10.1007/s00417-017-3659-0
发表时间：
2017-08
期刊：
Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie
影响因子：
--
作者：
Radner W
通讯作者：
Radner W