GARY S. RUBIN

Vision rehabiIitation for patients with agerelated macular degeneration

Epidemiology of low vision

The over-representation of macular degeneration patients in the low-vision clinic is reflected in the chief complaints of those referred for rehabilitation. A study of 1000 consecutive patients seen at the Wilmer Low Vision clinic indicated that 64% listed as their chief complaint, while other activitiꢍs were identified by fewer than 8% of patients. Undoubtedly the bias towards reading problems results partly from the nature of the low-vision services offered. Those served by ꢋ community-based programme that includes home visits might be more likely to report problems with activities of daily living, wꢀile a blind rehabilitation centre would be more likely to address mobility issues. Nevertheless, ꢐꢁst macular degeneration patients are referred to hospital or optometry clinic services, and as their overwhelming concern is with reading, that will be the emphasis of this paper.
The epidemiology of vision impairment is dealt with in detail elsewhere.1 However, there is one particularly salient factor that bears emphasis. The prevalence of vision impairment increases dramatically with advancing age. Statistics compiled in the UK by the Royal National Institute for the Blind2 indicate that there were approximately 1.1 million blind or partially sighted persons in 1996, of whom 82% were 65 years of age or older. Thus it is not surprising to learn that the major causes of vision impairment are age-related eye diseases. Fig. 1 illustrates the distribution of causes of vision impairment from three recent studies?-5 Approximately equal percentages are attributed to macular degeneration and cataract, with smaller percentages for glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy and optic neuropathies. However, the primary cause of vision impairment among patients referred for low-vision services is markedly different. As shown in Fig. 2, over half the low vision patients referred to three large practices in the US,6 UK7 and Canada8 had macular degeneration and fewer than 10% were referred with each of the other conditions.

Reading rehabilitation in age-related macular degeneration

Maꢀification

Most low-vision patients require magnificaꢊion in order to read. When reading speed is measured as a function of character size, tꢀꢁꢂ with normal vision read the fastest with a broꢋd
Why is macular degeneration so overrepresented in the low-vision clinic compared with its prevalence in the population? There are several possible reasons. First, cataract, the other leading cause of vision impairment, is treatable. Although half of those with visionlimiting cataract elect not to have surgery in the 2 years following diagnosis,9 few are referred for vision rehabilitation. A second reason may be that macular degeneration affects central vision while some of the other conditions, such as glaucoma, initially affect peripheral vision. A drop in central vision is more quickly noticed by the patient and may be more detrimental to everyday visual activities. Third, many of those who refer patients for low-vision services view vision rehabilitation as the mere dispensing of optical magnifiers. Magnification is effective for problems with poor resolution in central vision, but has little value for addressing peripheral vision problems caused by restricted fields. range of letter sizes between 0.5 ° and 2.0

• o
• .

Not

surprisingly, this range of letter sizes encompasses the range of ordinary print frꢁm newspaper text to small headlines. Most lꢁwvision patients read best with enlarged priꢉꢊ and the amount of magnification is fairly clꢁsely related to their acuity.lO On average, the optimum letter size is about 4 times the acꢃꢄꢅ limit. Patients with central scotomas, incluꢑꢄng those with advanced macular degeneratioꢉ, typically require more magnification than tho�l

with intact central fields, and the required is usually a greater multiple of tꢀꢍꢄr acuity. Even when provided with optimal magnification, patients with central scotoꢐꢆs usually read more slowly than those with iꢉꢊꢋꢌ" central fields. In a study of low-vision patiꢍꢎꢏ reading with optimal magnification, the ꢐꢍꢑꢄꢒ reading rate was less than 50 words/miꢉ fꢁr

Prof. G.S. Rubin � Department of Vision Rehabilitation Research Institute of Ophthalmology 11-43 Bath Street London EC1V gEL, UK

e-mail: [email protected]

Eye (2001) 15, 430-435

©

2001 Rꢆyꢃꢄ Cꢆꢄꢄege ꢆf Oꢀꢁꢂꢁꢃꢄꢅꢆꢄꢇꢈꢉꢊ

430

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

us

Canada

UK

0

0

•

-

ꢋꢍ

0

�

ꢍ

ꢎ

AMD

Glauc

DR

Opt Atr

RP

Cornea Cataract

Fig. 1. Leading causes of visual impairment (acuity worse than 6/12 in better eye) are shown for three recent population-based studies. Data for rural US are adapted ꢀom a study of 1136 subjects over age 40 years in rural Kentucky.3 Data for urban US areꢀom a study of 5300 adults 40 years of age and older in Baltimore, Maryland.4 Data for Australia areꢀom a study of 3647 adults aged 46 years and overꢀom the Blue Mountains Eye Study.s AMD, age-related macular degeneration; DR, diabetic retinopathy; Opt Atr, optic atrophy.

paꢔienꢔs wiꢔh scoꢔomas in ꢔhe cenꢔralS 0, buꢔ over 150 words/min for ꢔhose wiꢔh inꢔacꢔ cenꢔral fields.lO more as ꢔhe magnificaꢔion increases. Iꢔ is difficulꢔ ꢔo obꢔain ꢔhe magnificaꢔion required ꢔo recognise leꢔꢔers wiꢔhouꢔ resꢔricꢔing ꢔhe field ꢔo less ꢔhan ꢔhe minimum reqUired window widꢔh.
Elecꢔronic magnificaꢔion aids, such as closed circuiꢔ
ꢔelevisions, provide high magnificaꢔion wiꢔh a large field of view. Neverꢔheless, experienced CCTV users wiꢔh macular degeneraꢔion sꢔill read slower ꢔhan oꢔher ꢔypes of low-vision paꢔienꢔs. This suggesꢔs ꢔhaꢔ reading speed is limiꢔed noꢔ only by ꢔhe field of view of ꢔhe magnifier, buꢔ also ꢔhe visual span of ꢔhe readerY To a firsꢔ approximaꢔion, ꢔhe visual span is ꢔhe number of leꢔꢔers ꢔhaꢔ can be recognised in a single fixaꢔion. In normally
Iꢔ is noꢔ compleꢔely undersꢔood why paꢔienꢔs wiꢔh macular degeneraꢔion or oꢔher cenꢔral field defecꢔs have sꢁ much difficulꢔy reading. One facꢔor is probably relaꢔed ꢊꢁ ꢔhe high magnificaꢔion requiremenꢔ. In order ꢔo read ꢍfficienꢔly, one needs ꢔo be able ꢔo see and recognise aꢔ lꢍasꢔ a minimum number of characꢔers. This minimum 'window widꢔh' may be as low as 4 or 5 leꢔꢔers for ꢔexꢔ ꢓaꢔ is passively scrolled pasꢔ ꢔhe reader,n buꢔ exꢔends ꢔo 15-30 leꢔꢔers for ꢔexꢔ ꢔhaꢔ musꢔ be acꢔively scannedY All ꢁpꢔical magnifiers, be ꢔhey high-plus specꢔacles, hand or sꢔand magnifiers, or ꢔelescopes, resꢔricꢔ ꢔhe field of view

30

25

20

o

o

•

Rural US

Urban US

Australia

-

ꢏ

ꢍ

15

10

5

0

�

ꢍ

ꢀ

0

AMD

Cataract

DR

Glaucoma

Opt Atr

Fig. 2. Leading causes of visual impairment in patients referred for low-vision rehabilitation are shown for three low-vision services. Data for the US are ꢀom an unpublished study of 1000 consecutive patients seen at the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute low-vision service6 Data for Canada areꢀom a study of 1398 individuals in an assistive devices program in Ontari08 Data for the UK areꢀom a study of 218 patients seen at the University of Wales College of Cardꢁlowvision service.? AMD, age-related macular degeneration; Glauc, glaucoma; DR, diabetic retinopathy; Opt Atr, optic atrophy; RP, retinitis pigmentosa.

431

a

Fig. 3. Eye movement records are shown for three reading trials. Gaze position was sampled at 250 Hz and each black dot is the gaze position for one sample. Clusters of dots indicatefixations, and dots separated by straight lines indicate saccades. In the left panel, the subject was reading with a ꢃll visualfield. In the middle panel, the subject was reading with a 3.5 0 diameter simulated scotoma placed one letter space to the right af fixation. The right panel shows data for a 3.5 0 simulated scotoma centred on fixation.

sighꢔed observers ꢔhe visual span is limiꢔed by ꢔhe dropoff in acuiꢔy and conꢔrasꢔ sensiꢔiviꢔy away from ꢔhe fovea. In paꢔienꢔs wiꢔh macular disease, even if ꢔhe peripheral reꢔina is normal,14 visual span is consꢔrained by ꢔhe presence of a scoꢔoma aꢔ ꢔhe cenꢔre of ꢔhe visual field, by disꢔorꢔions jusꢔ ouꢔside ꢔhe scoꢔoma,15 and by ꢔhe dropoff in acuiꢔy and conꢔrasꢔ sensiꢔiviꢔy in peripheral vision.
ꢔhe eye moved. An SRI Generaꢔion VI eyeꢔracker was fiꢔꢔed wiꢔh a sꢔimulus deflecꢔor19 conꢔaining ꢔwo mirror galvanomeꢔers. Analogue eye posiꢔion signals from ꢔhe eyeꢔracker were used ꢔo roꢔaꢔe ꢔhe mirrors abouꢔ ꢔhe verꢔical and horizonꢔal axes and ꢔhus cancel eye movemenꢔs over a range of abouꢔ ±20°. The sꢔimulus deflecꢔor was modified as described by Crane and Kelly20 so ꢔhaꢔ a sꢔabilised mask could be superimposeꢑ on an unsꢔabilised view of ꢔhe world. The world in ꢔhis case was a compuꢔer moniꢔor conꢔaining ꢔexꢔ.

Eye movements

The eye movemenꢔ signals from ꢔhe eyeꢔracker were sampled aꢔ 250 Hz wiꢔh an analogue-ꢔo-digiꢔal converꢔer and sꢔored for laꢔer analyses. Fig. 3 shows examples of ꢔhe eye movemenꢔ records obꢔained under ꢔhree condiꢔions. The lefꢔ panel shows eye movemenꢔs wheꢉ reading ꢔexꢔ wiꢔhouꢔ a scoꢔoma. Each doꢔ represenꢔs a sampled eye posiꢔion. Clusꢔers of doꢔs indicaꢔe fixaꢔioꢉs, while individual doꢔs connecꢔed by sꢔraighꢔ lines represenꢔ saccades. In ꢔhe absence of a scoꢔoma, ꢔhis reader followed ꢔhe lines of ꢔexꢔ in a regular and predicꢔable fashion, wiꢔh one fixaꢔion for mosꢔ of ꢔhe words and a rapid sweep ꢔo reꢔurn ꢔo ꢔhe beginning of a new line. The middle panel shows daꢔa for a fairly sꢐall 3.5 ° scoꢔoma locaꢔed one leꢔꢔer ꢔo ꢔhe righꢔ of fixaꢔion.
Sꢔaꢔic picꢔures ꢔhaꢔ aꢔꢔempꢔ ꢔo simulaꢔe ꢔhe appearance of ꢔhe world ꢔhrough a cenꢔral scoꢔoma fail ꢔo depicꢔ ꢔhe full exꢔenꢔ of ꢔhe difficulꢔy. As we inspecꢔ such simulaꢔions our eyes are free ꢔo roam ꢔo and fro over ꢔhe represenꢔaꢔion. Buꢔ for ꢔhe person wiꢔh a macular scoꢔoma, ꢔhe scoꢔoma is fixed on ꢔhe reꢔina and moves wiꢔh ꢔhe direcꢔion of gaze. There is no looking around iꢔ. To gain a beꢔꢔer undersꢔanding of problems confronꢔed by paꢔienꢔs wiꢔh macular degeneraꢔion, we underꢔook a series of sꢔudies of eye movemenꢔs and reading performance in normally sighꢔed observers in whom a cenꢔral scoꢔoma was simulaꢔed by means of an

• eyeꢔracker.16-18 Unlike sꢔaꢔic
• ꢔhese

simulaꢔions creaꢔed dynamic 'scoꢔomas' ꢔhaꢔ moved as

ꢓ40

ꢁ

-

ꢑ

o

•

ꢝꢞꢟꢠꢡ Lꢟſt ꢝꢞꢟꢠꢡ Right

ꢓ20

ꢓꢔ
ꢕꢖ

40 20
0

c

ꢁ

�

-

1

ꢗꢘQ

c

ꢂ

ꢙꢚꢛ

ꢜ

CG

LM

Subject

Fig. 4. Reading speeds are plotted for three subjects with normal vision. The open bars show data when the subjects were forced to attend to the leſt of fixation by a retinally stabilised mask that blocked all informationꢀom the right of fixation. The black bars show data when the subjects were forced to attend to the right of fixation by a mask to the left. Vertical bars are ꢄSE of the mean.

432

30

25 ꢃ

15 10

5

12 10

8

�

Aꢀeꢁ Leſt

0

•

Aꢂꢁ ꢢꢣꢤ

I

8

!

ꢃ

ꢥ

ꢂ

ꢄ
6

!

ꢄ

I

ꢅ

ꢧ
ꢦ

4

�

ꢆ

E

!

2

�

z

ꢇ

0
0

• Subjꢈ
• Subjꢈ

Fig. 5. Eye movement data are plotted for the same reading conditions as in Fig. 4. The left panel shows the number of forward saccades when the subjects were forced to attend to the left or right offixation. The right panel shows the average saccade size when subjects were forced to attend to the leſt, or right. Vertical bars are ±1 SE of the mean.

e eye posiꢔion samples are displaced ꢔo ꢔhe righꢔ cꢁmpared wiꢔh ꢔhe no scoꢔoma condiꢔion. This indicaꢔes ꢔꢀaꢔ ꢔhe observer had deviaꢔed ꢔhe eyes slighꢔly ꢔo ꢔhe righꢔ and was presumably using an area in ꢔhe lefꢔ visual fꢄeld ꢔo read. In ꢔhis condiꢔion ꢔhe reader ofꢔen made mulꢔiple fixaꢔions per word, and ꢔhe reꢔurn sweep was iꢉꢔerrupꢔed by mulꢔiple fixaꢔions. The righꢔ panel shows ꢔꢀe eye movemenꢔ record for a 3.50 scoꢔoma cenꢔred aꢔ ꢔꢀe fovea. The ꢔexꢔ had ꢔo be enlarged for ꢔhe observer ꢔo rꢍsolve ꢔhe leꢔꢔers wꢄꢔh peripheral vision. However, even wiꢔh ꢔhe magnfied ꢔexꢔ ꢔhe eye movemenꢔ paꢔꢔern was quiꢔe disorganised wiꢔh mulꢔiple fixaꢔions and small sꢆccades wiꢔhin words.
We measured reading speed and eye movemenꢔs in normally sighꢔed subjecꢔs who viewed ꢔexꢔ ꢔhrough a sꢔabilised mask ꢔhaꢔ limiꢔed informaꢔion ꢔo ꢔhe lefꢔ or righꢔ visual fields.17 The resulꢔs are shown in Fig. 4. Consisꢔenꢔ wiꢔh our predicꢔions, reading speeds were up ꢔo 50% fasꢔer when aꢔꢔending ꢔo ꢔhe righꢔ field insꢔead of ꢔo ꢔhe lefꢔ. The righꢔ field advanꢔage was reflecꢔed in ꢔhe eye movemenꢔ daꢔa shown in Fig. 5. There were significanꢔly fewer saccades (lefꢔ panel) and ꢔhe saccades were correspondingly larger (righꢔ panel) when aꢔꢔending ꢔo ꢔhe righꢔ. Fixaꢔion duraꢔion did noꢔ differ according ꢔo ꢔhe direcꢔion of aꢔꢔenꢔion (noꢔ shown). The fasꢔesꢔ reading raꢔes and mosꢔ efficienꢔ eye movemenꢔs were obꢔained when all ꢔhe ꢔexꢔual informaꢔion was presenꢔed in ꢔhe lower visual field. Indeed, paꢔienꢔs wiꢔh Sꢔargardꢔ disease, a juvenile form of macular

Eccentric fixation

degeneraꢔion, were more likely ꢔo use a PRL below ꢔheir scoꢔoma.25 Anoꢔher imporꢔanꢔ difference beꢔween ꢔhe age-related macular degeneration and Sꢔargardꢔ disease paꢔienꢔs was ꢔhaꢔ ꢔhose wiꢔh age-relaꢔed macular degeneraꢔion were more likely ꢔo use a PRL ꢔhaꢔ was very close ꢔo ꢔhe scoꢔoma boundary. Wheꢔher ꢔhe more remoꢔe placemenꢔ of ꢔhe PRL increases ꢔhe efficiency of visual processing is a quesꢔion for fuꢔure research.
One of ꢔhe goals of vision rehabiliꢔaꢔion ꢄs ꢔo help ꢔhe paꢔienꢔ esꢔablish an appropriaꢔe PRL and ꢔo use ꢔhaꢔ PRL efficienꢔly. Various procedures have been promoꢔed for ꢔraining ꢔhe PRL,26 buꢔ ꢄꢔ remains conꢔroversial wheꢔher ꢔhese ꢔraining procedures work any beꢔꢔer ꢔhan simple pracꢔice. One of ꢔhe major problems confronꢔing ꢔhe clinician is ꢔo know where ꢔhe PRL is locaꢔed on ꢔhe reꢔꢄna. Wꢄꢔhouꢔ ꢔhis informaꢔion iꢔ is difficulꢔ ꢔo evaluaꢔe wheꢔher ꢔhe locaꢔion ꢄs appropriaꢔe, how iꢔ changes as ꢔhe paꢔienꢔ adapꢔs ꢔo ꢔhe eye condiꢔion, and how ꢔhe PRL locaꢔion responds ꢔo rehabꢄliꢔaꢔion and ꢔraining. The scanning laser ophꢔhalmoscope27 can provide ꢔhis muchneeded informaꢔion, buꢔ iꢔs poꢔenꢔial uses in ꢔhe field of vision rehabiliꢔaꢔion have only begun ꢔo be recognised (see e.g. Fleꢔcher et aI.28).
The eye mꢊvement paꢔꢔerns in Fig. 3 were obꢔained wiꢔh

a

ꢉꢊrmaꢋy sighted ꢊbserver whꢊ had ꢊnly a few hꢊurs ꢊf

pracꢔice reading wiꢔh a scoꢔoma. Macular degeneraꢔion paꢔienꢔs adapꢔ ꢔo ꢔheir scoꢔomas slowly and ꢔypically make a ꢔransiꢔion from conscious use of eccenꢔric reꢔinal ꢆreas ꢔo ꢔhe auꢔomaꢔic subsꢔiꢔuꢔion of a single eccenꢔric lꢁcus which behaves as a pseudo-fovea. This 'preferred reꢔinal locus' or PRL21 can behave as ꢔhe anaꢔomical rꢍference for fixaꢔion eye movemenꢔs, much as ꢔhe real fꢁvea serves ꢔhose wiꢔh normal vision,z2 Neverꢔheless, ꢍven in paꢔienꢔs wiꢔh long-sꢔanding scoꢔomas and wellꢍsꢔablished PRLs, ꢔhere is ꢔendency ꢔowards mulꢔiple fꢄxaꢔions wiꢔhin words and shorꢔer saccades beꢔween fꢄxaꢔꢄons.23
Mosꢔ paꢔienꢔs wꢄꢔh age-relaꢔed macular degeneraꢔꢄon
ꢆdopꢔ a PRL ꢔhaꢔ is ꢔo ꢔhe lefꢔ of a cenꢔral scoꢔoma (in vꢄsual fꢄeld space),z4.25 However, research on reading ꢆꢉd eye movemenꢔs in subjecꢔs wiꢔh normal vision ꢄꢉdicaꢔes ꢔhaꢔ more informaꢔion abouꢔ word idenꢔiꢔy is ꢁbꢔained from leꢔꢔers ꢔo ꢔhe righꢔ of fixaꢔion. According ꢔo ꢁꢉe esꢔimaꢔe, ꢔhe normal reader acquires leꢔꢔer shape ꢄꢉformaꢔion from 12-15 leꢔꢔers in ꢔhe righꢔ half of ꢔhe fiꢍld, buꢔ only 4-5 leꢔꢔers in ꢔhe lefꢔ halfY Thus, iꢔ would sꢍem beꢔꢔer ꢔo use a PRL ꢔo ꢔhe rꢄghꢔ of a scoꢔoma ꢄnsꢔead ꢁf ꢔo ꢔhe lefꢔ.
As an alꢔernaꢔive ꢔo ꢔraining eccenꢔric fixaꢔion and reading eye movemenꢔs, we have invesꢔigaꢔed wheꢔher iꢔ may be possible ꢔo change ꢔhe reading ꢔask in order ꢔo make iꢔ simpler for paꢔienꢔs wiꢔh macular degeneraꢔion.

433

single fixaꢔion. This suggesꢔs ꢔhaꢔ resꢔricꢔions in visual span combine wiꢔh eye movemenꢔ inefficiencies ꢔo liꢐiꢊ reading performance in paꢔienꢔs wiꢔh macular degeneraꢔion. Neverꢔheless, some paꢔienꢔs were able ꢔo increase ꢔheir reading speeds enough wiꢔh RSVP ꢔhaꢔ iꢔ mighꢔ provide a useful alꢔernaꢔive ꢔo convenꢔional sꢔaꢔic ꢔexꢔ.

S

ꢨ

4:1

1000
100
10

c

�

ꢃ

o

ꢄ

!

ꢪꢫ

c

Future developments in reading rehabilitation

o•

Nꢅ CFL CFL

Nꢅꢆꢈal

J

This brief review of some recenꢔ developmenꢔs in reading rehabiliꢔaꢔion research indicaꢔes ꢔhaꢔ many of ꢔhꢍ problems confronꢔed by paꢔienꢔs wiꢔh age-relaꢔed macular degeneraꢔion cannoꢔ be solved wiꢔh

ꢬ

•

ꢀ

ꢪ

• 10
• 100
• 1000

magnificaꢔion alone. One key ꢔo improving reading efficiency may be beꢔꢔer ꢔraining in ꢔhe use of eccenꢔric fixaꢔion. Anoꢔher approach is ꢔo improve access ꢔo ꢔhe wriꢔꢔen word by increasing ꢔexꢔ legibiliꢔy, making beꢔꢔꢍr use of ꢔhe limiꢔed visual span, and reducing ꢔhꢍ need fꢁr accuraꢔe saccadic eye movemenꢔs. This approach will benefiꢔ from recenꢔ ꢔechnological advances in compuꢔꢍr imaging and video displays. The developmenꢔ of a commercial markeꢔ for 'virꢔual realiꢔy' displays has madꢍ iꢔ economically feasible ꢔo produce porꢔable, lighꢔ- weighꢔ, head-mounꢔed TV sysꢔems ꢔhaꢔ deliver brighꢔ images wiꢔh high conꢔrasꢔ. Several commercial headmounꢔed reading devices have been puꢔ on ꢔhe markeꢔ in ꢔhe pasꢔ few years and we anxiously awaiꢔ ꢔhe resulꢔs ꢁf currenꢔ sꢔudies ꢔo evaluaꢔe ꢔheir effecꢔiveness as lowvision aids. The Inꢔerneꢔ has had boꢔh posiꢔive and negaꢔive effecꢔs on visual rehabiliꢔaꢔion. While ꢔhe growing dependence on graphical inꢔerfaces, icons and windows may make iꢔ difficulꢔ for ꢔhe visually impaireꢑ reader ꢔo acquire informaꢔion from ꢔhe World Wide Wꢍb, ꢔhere is a vasꢔ increase in ꢔhe amounꢔ of informaꢔion ꢔꢀꢆꢊ is available in digiꢔal formaꢔ. When RSVP was firsꢔ suggesꢔed as a low-vision reading ꢔechnique, ꢔhere was very liꢔꢔle ꢔexꢔ ꢔhaꢔ was direcꢔly accessible via compuꢊꢍr. We envisioned having ꢔo scan pages of ꢔexꢔ one aꢔ a ꢔimꢍ and converꢔ ꢔhem ꢔo a digiꢔal formaꢔ ꢔhaꢔ could be playꢍꢑ back a word aꢔ a ꢔime. Now, books, magazines and newspapers are all being creaꢔed and sꢔored in compuꢔꢍr files, many of which are available free or by subscripꢔiꢁn on ꢔhe Web. Thus far, ꢔoo liꢔꢔle efforꢔ has been devoꢔed to developing ꢔhe sofꢔware ꢔo access ꢔhose files and presꢍnꢊ ꢔhem in an opꢔimal fashion for visually impaired readers. We musꢔ hope ꢔhaꢔ as we become more dependenꢔ oꢉ compuꢔerised sources of informaꢔion, ꢔhe accessibiliꢔy needs of ꢔhose wiꢔh visual impairmenꢔs, and parꢔicularly ꢔhe growing populaꢔion of ꢔhose wiꢔh age-relaꢔed macular degeneraꢔion, will noꢔ be ignored.

PAGE Rꢍadꢉꢊg Raꢌꢍ (wꢅꢆdꢇꢈꢉꢊꢋꢌꢍ)

Fig. 6. Maximum reading speeds are compared for conventional PAGE reading, on the x-axis, and sequential RSVP reading, on the yaxis. Thefilled triangle is average data for four observers with normal vision. Open circles are data for low-vision subjects without scotomas in the central 5 0, andfilled circles are data for subjects with central scotomas. The diagonal lines indicate the relative advantage of RSVP over PAGE reading. Data falling along the 1:1 line indicate that RSVP was read no fasterthan PAGE text, whiledata falling along the 4:1 line indicate that RSVP reading was 4 times faster than PAGE reading.

A ꢔexꢔ presenꢔaꢔion ꢔechnique developed around 197029 provided ꢔhe key. Rapid serial visual presenꢔaꢔion (RSVP) was firsꢔ used ꢔo sꢔudy cogniꢔive processing during normal reading. Insꢔead of presenꢔing a full page of ꢔexꢔ ꢔhaꢔ is scanned wiꢔh a series of eye movemenꢔs, RSVP presenꢔs words one aꢔ a ꢔime in a fixed locaꢔion. Provided ꢔhe enꢔire word fiꢔs wiꢔhin ꢔhe visual span, no eye movemenꢔs are necessary. Our work3o demonsꢔraꢔed ꢔhaꢔ normally sighꢔed observers could read RSVP ꢔexꢔ wiꢔh good comprehension even fasꢔer ꢔhan a normal page of sꢔaꢔic ꢔexꢔ. Some were able ꢔo read RSVP ꢔexꢔ aꢔ speeds in excess of 1000 words/min, compared wiꢔh 250-300 words/min for sꢔaꢔic ꢔexꢔ.
Buꢔ whaꢔ abouꢔ low-vision paꢔienꢔs? Fig. 6 compares
RSVP and sꢔaꢔic reading speeds for 23 subjecꢔs wiꢔh various ocular paꢔhologies.31 The filled circles presenꢔ daꢔa for 14 subjecꢔs wiꢔh cenꢔral scoꢔomas, mosꢔ due ꢔo macular degeneraꢔion, and ꢔhe open circles presenꢔ daꢔa for ꢔhe 9 subjecꢔs wiꢔh low vision buꢔ who had inꢔacꢔ cenꢔral fields. The open ꢔriangle represenꢔs average daꢔa for a group of normally sighꢔed subjecꢔs. The normally sighꢔed subjecꢔs read abouꢔ 4 ꢔimes fasꢔer wiꢔh RSVP compared wiꢔh sꢔaꢔic ꢔexꢔ. Low-vision paꢔienꢔs wiꢔh inꢔacꢔ cenꢔral fields read approximaꢔely ꢔwice as fasꢔ wiꢔh RSVP. Unforꢔunaꢔely, ꢔhe low-vision paꢔienꢔs wiꢔh macular scoꢔomas showed ꢔhe leasꢔ improvemenꢔ, reading an average of 40% fasꢔer wiꢔh RSVP. A deꢔailed analysis of eye movemenꢔs using a scanning laser ophꢔhalmoscope indicaꢔed ꢔhaꢔ RSVP reduced buꢔ did noꢔ eliminaꢔe inꢔra-word saccades in paꢔienꢔs wiꢔh macular scoꢔomas. Some of ꢔhese subjecꢔs indicaꢔed ꢔhaꢔ wiꢔh ꢔhe high level of magnificaꢔion needed ꢔo resolve ꢔhe leꢔꢔers iꢔ was impossible ꢔo recognise an enꢔire word in a

Research described here incorporates studies conducted with many colleagues including Gordon Legge, Kathleen Turano, Roger Cummings and Elisabeth Fine. This work was supported by grants from the National Eye Institute and National Institute on Aging of the US Public Health Service, and the AMOCO Foundation.

434

16ꢇ Cummings RW, Rubin GSꢇ Reading speed and saccadic eye movements with an artificial paracentral scotomaꢁ Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci 1992;33:1418ꢇ

References

1ꢁ Tielsch JMꢁ The epidemiology of vision impairmentꢇ In: Silverstone B, Lang M, Rosenthal B, Faye E, editorsꢇ Lighthouse handbook on vision impairment and vision rehabilitation, vol 1ꢇ Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000P5ꢀ17ꢁ
17ꢇ Fine EM, Rubin GSꢁ Reading with simulated scotomas: attending to the right is better than attending to the leftꢁ Vision Res 1999;39:1039ꢅ48ꢇ
18ꢇ Fine EM, Rubin GSꢇ Reading with central field loss: number of letters masked is more important than the size of the mask in degreesꢁ Vision Res 1999;39:747-56ꢇ
2ꢇ Royal National Institute for the Blindꢁ Office of National Statistics mid 1996 population estimates: estimates for 1996 of visually impaired people (iꢇeꢁ registerable) and the number of people registered as blind and partially sighted as at 31 March 1997 in United Kingdomꢇ
19ꢇ Crane HD, Clark MRꢁ Three-dimensional visual stimulus deflectorꢇ Appl Opt 1978;17:706ꢅ13ꢇ
20ꢇ Crane HD, Kelly DHꢁ Accurate simulation of visual scotomas http://wwwꢁrnibꢁorgꢁuk/wesupply/fctsheet/authukꢁhtm

3ꢁ Dana MR, Tielsch JM, Enger C, Joyce E, Santoli JM, Taylor HRꢁ Visual impairment in a rural Appalachian community: prevalence and causesꢁ JAMA 1990;264:24ꢂ5ꢇ in normal subjectsꢁ Appl Opt 1983;22:1802ꢅꢆꢇ
21ꢁ Timberlake GT, Mainster MA, Peli E, Augliere ꢭꢯ Essock
EA, Arend LEꢁ Reading with a macula scotomaꢇ Iꢁ Retinal location of scotoma and fixation areaꢇ Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1986;27:1137ꢅ47ꢇ
4ꢁ Rahmani B, Tielsch JM, Katz J, Gottsch J, Quigley H, Javitt J, Sommer Aꢁ The cause-specific prevalence of visual impairment in an urban population: the Baltimore Eye Surveyꢇ Ophthalmology 1996;103:1721-6ꢁ
22ꢇ White JM, Bedell HEꢁ The oculomotor reference in humans with bilateral macular diseaseꢇ Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1990;31:1149-61ꢇ
5ꢁ Attebo K, Mitchell P, Smith Wꢁ Visual acuity and the causes