Purchase this article with an account.
Mary Lou Jackson, Kimberly A. Schoessow, Jennifer Wallis; Reading Performance With A Video Magnifier In Patients With Central Field Loss. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):4388.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To quantify the effect of using a video magnifier on subjective report and objective measurements of reading performance compared to usual care. We previously reported changes in reading from enrollment to one month. Here we report results after vision rehabilitation, which included training with an occupational therapist.
31 subjects were randomly assigned to either receive a video camera magnifier at initial consultation (Intervention Group) or at the end of vision rehabilitation (Control Group). Inclusion criteria were acuity of less than 20/40 and greater than 20/400. Objective measurements of reading performance included reading speed on the International Reading Speed Texts, standardized paragraph (iRest), ability to read an amount on a handwritten bank check, ability to read the directions on a prescription medication label and ability to identify and read a phone number from a page in the phone book. A shortened version of the Activity Inventory Questionnaire was used. All measurements were made at enrollment (T1), at one month (T2) and at the termination of vision rehabilitation (T3. Both groups used usual pre-rehabilitation devices for baseline measurement. Patients in the intervention group used the video magnifier for reading tasks at one month and at the end of rehabilitation. Additionally, changes in mood were assessed by the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS).
Considering all subjects, there was improvement on reading performance from enrollment to post-rehabilitation. For both groups, reading speed increased by 37 wpm (T1: M= 16.61, SEM= 6.24, T2: M=52.02, SEM=8.15, T3: M=53.82 SEM= 7.94; p<.000), and there was improved ability to read a check and medication label (T1: M=1.84, SEM=.23, T2: M=2.54, SEM=.16, T3: M=2.77, SEM: .09, p=.002; T1: M=1.06, SEM= .24, T2: M= 2.11, SEM= .20, T3: M=2.34, SEM=.13, p<.000; respectively). Compared to controls, the intervention group had significant improvement in reading a phone number (Intervention Group T1: M=.18, SEM=.24, T2: M=1.68, SEM=.32, T3: 2.5, SEM=.23; p<.000) and reported less difficulty reading the newspaper (Intervention Group T1: M=3.00, SEM=.34, T2: M=1.57, SEM=.33, T3: M=.86, SEM=.29; p=.004). All subjects improved on the DASS during rehabilitation (T1: M=18.04, SEM=3.52., T2: M=17.28, SEM=.3.97, T3: M=10.91., SEM=.2.60; p=.008). There was no additional benefit for those in the Intervention group. Most improvement in mood was observed from T2 to T3.
Compared to usual care, a video magnifier allows improved reading for smaller print, which is often required in day to day activities. Future research will investigate whether the improvements in reading persist one year post rehabilitation.
Clinical Trial: :
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only