Abstract
purpose. To determine whether reading speed with a hand-held magnifier is influenced by age-related manual dexterity decline.
methods. Two groups of normally sighted individuals who were inexperienced in the use of a magnifier were recruited. The older group comprised 15 subjects 60 to 85 years of age, and the younger group consisted of 12 subjects 18 to 30 years of age. Subjects' reading speeds were measured under three conditions: (1) reading 12-point print without a magnifier, (2) reading 3-point print by moving a hand-held magnifier across the page, and (3) using the same print and magnifier, but moving the text under the stationary magnifier. Manual dexterity was assessed using the Jebsen-Taylor hand-function test, upper arm motor coordination with the finger-nose test, and grip strength using the Jamar dynamometer.
results. No significant difference was found between the two age groups in the mean reading speed for unmagnified text. Reading speed with a magnifier was significantly reduced in the older group, but not in the younger group. In both groups, no significant difference was found between moving the magnifier and moving the text during magnifier reading. Grip strength did not differ between the groups. The Jebsen-Taylor and finger-nose tests, however, showed poorer manual dexterity in the older group, and these correlated with the reading speed with the magnifier.
conclusions. Manual dexterity should be considered as a possible prognostic factor for successful use of a hand-held low-vision aid. It is not known whether the deficit can be overcome with suitable training.
Difficulty in reading is the most common functional problem reported by patients presenting to a Low Vision Service, and the prescription of low-vision aids (LVAs) is the most common management option. There are many different categories of LVAs including telescopes and electronic vision-enhancement systems, but a significant number of patients are prescribed (or obtain independently) a plus-lens magnifier in hand-held form.
1 The device is usually a single bi-convex (plus) lens of appropriate power, held close to the eye to optimize field-of-view (FOV), with the object near the focal point of the magnifier. Reading with a hand-held magnifier requires the subject to hold both the magnifier and the text, thus occupying both hands. The limited FOV creates a page navigation problem: the user has to move the magnifier to the right along the lines of the text while maintaining the lens-to-object distance. At the end of the line, a return sweep to the left is needed to find the beginning of the next line. Particularly when the FOV is limited, higher reading speeds may be obtained by holding the magnifier still and moving the text under the magnifier.
1 This also has the advantage that the user is always viewing through the optimum central portion of the lens.
LVAs have been shown to be an effective means of improving reading ability in patients with impaired vision,
2 3 4 but a proportion of patients do not find them useful. There are a number of visual and nonvisual reasons why patients with low-vision may have problems reading with a magnifier. Visual factors include inadequate acuity reserve and contrast reserve,
5 restricted FOV,
6 and the presence of a central scotoma.
7 Nonvisual factors include the patient's reading comprehension,
8 and training or practice with the task.
9 The roles of physical and mental abilities in magnifier use have not been studied, although den Brinker and Beek
10 suggested investigation of the effects of eye–hand coordination on magnifier reading. It was therefore the purpose of this study to investigate the effects of manual dexterity on the successful use of the hand-held magnifier.
A total of 77% of those who are registered as visually impaired in England are older than 65 years.
11 Cross-sectional studies have shown that there is an age-related decline in dexterity.
12 13 14 Motor coordination which is essential in producing smooth, controlled, and accurate movements, also shows a linear decline with age.
15 This decline may be due to vascular, musculoskeletal, and/or neural problems that are common in the elderly population,
16 such as minor strokes and transient ischemic attacks, joint disorders such as osteoarthritis,
17 18 decrease in muscle and bone mass,
19 and mild involuntary senile tremor.
20
Despite the range of manual dexterity tests available, there is no single standardized test and one or more tests may be used depending on the purpose of the evaluation. Given the limited studies of the physical aspects of the use of hand-held magnifiers, the specific types of hand function needed for effective manipulation of the aid are unknown. The tests in this study were therefore selected to cover a range of abilities.
The static grip force (in pounds; often also considered to be a good indicator of general upper limb strength) can be assessed with the Jamar dynamometer
21 and is obviously relevant for holding an object with adequate force to prevent slippage. Mathiowetz et al.
13 reported a set of normative values for the Jamar dynamometer, finding a high correlation between grip strength and age, with the highest grip strength score reported in the 25- to 39-year age group. The Jebsen-Taylor hand-function test was designed to be an objective, comprehensive evaluation of global hand function.
22 It is a timed test and addresses a broad range of different hand functions using seven subtests comprising writing, simulated page-turning, picking up small common objects, simulated feeding, stacking checkers, picking up large light objects, and picking up large heavy objects. Each of the subtests is performed according to a standardized protocol, with first the nondominant and then the dominant hand. The time needed to complete each task is recorded to the nearest 0.1 second, and the results are summed to give a global score, with lower scores suggesting better dexterity. Upper limb motor coordination is traditionally measured with the finger-nose test.
23 Normative data for the test are age-dependent and show a linear decline with advancing age.
15 The primary objective of the present study was to determine the relationship between manual dexterity (assessed with these three different measures) and reading rate with a hand-held magnifier, in subjects of different ages. When determining the optimum magnification or LVA for an individual patient, reading speed with the aid is an important selection criterion, in that it has the advantage of being easily quantified. Whittaker and Lovie-Kitchin
5 have established that the types of reading task that the patient is likely to be able to perform will be determined by the reading speed achieved. A secondary purpose was to investigate whether there was a difference in the reading performance of naïve subjects, whether moving the magnifier or moving the text.
Twenty-seven subjects who had never used a magnifier participated in the study, 15 (7 women, 8 men) in the older group (age range, 60–85 years; mean, 70.73 ± 7.30) and 12 (9 women, 3 men) in the younger group (age range, 18–30 years; mean, 24.75 ± 3.08). The older individuals were partners or relatives of patients who attended the eye department at Stretford Memorial Hospital or were patients of the Vision Centre at the University of Manchester; the young adults were university students. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. The study was conducted according to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the university ethics committee.
Subjects were selected to have corrected visual acuity (Snellen) of at least 6/9, and log contrast sensitivity (Pelli-Robson) of at least 1.50 in the older subjects and 1.65 in the younger group.
24 Normally sighted subjects were tested, because visually impaired subjects differ in the precise characteristics of their particular ocular disease and the consequent effect on reading; they are prescribed different types and powers of magnifier and have variable levels of experience and training in their use; and the hand-function tests, most of which are visually demanding, were not designed or adapted for the visually impaired.
To provide a representative sample of the type of individuals referred to low-vision clinics, subjects with arthritis, impaired upper limb function or history of vascular conditions such as transient ischemic attacks or strokes were not excluded from the study. Cognitive function was measured with the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE; adapted from Folstein et al.
25 ). All subjects had normal scores (maximum, 30), and there was no significant difference between the two age groups (29.20 ± 0.94 vs. 29.75 ± 0.45;
P = 0.075).
No assessment of the individual subjects' reading ability or comprehension was carried out. All had English as their preferred language.
Reading speed was recorded under three conditions: (1) reading 12-point print without magnification (UNMAG), (2) reading 3-point print by moving the magnifier across the page (MOVEMAG), and (3) reading 3-point print by moving the text under the stationary magnifier (MOVETEXT).
The text samples used were three short passages (approximately 600 words each) that had been used in research on reading comprehension.
26 27 Each passage was a meaningful story, and subjects were instructed to correct themselves if they realized that they had missed lines or words. The readability grades of the three passages were 8.8, 7.3, and 6.6 (Flesch-Kincaid scale), respectively. The texts were randomized to the different conditions, and no subject read a passage more than once. Each was printed fully justified over 15 lines, each containing 12 to 13 words: obviously the small print lines covered a shorter linear distance (31 mm). The power of the hand-held magnifier used was rated by the manufacturer as 5× (model 265560; Eschenbach Optik, Nürnberg, Germany). It consisted of a 58-mm diameter aspheric bi-convex lens with front surface power, +11.66; back surface power, +8.33; center thickness, 17.4 mm, refractive index = 1.498; and equivalent power, +19.00 DS.
To create an equivalent magnification in the two subject groups, the older group were asked to use their reading correction (the manufacturer recommends an eye-to-image distance of 40 cm
28 ). It was assumed that despite instructions to maximize the magnifier-to-page distance, the young subject group would exert some (proximal) accommodation. It is therefore estimated that all subjects experienced an equivalent power for the two-component system (magnifier and typical add/accommodation of +2.50) of approximately +12 to +14.4 DS (depending on the eye-to-magnifier distance, which was between 14 cm as recommended by the manufacturer and 20 cm, the maximum actually used by any subject). The magnification relative to the unmagnified print at the average habitual reading distance of 30 cm was therefore 3.6× to 4.3×. The viewing conditions were not rigidly fixed during the experiment, but the required acuity reserve to achieve the critical print size (up to 3:1
5 ) is easily met for subjects with a minimum acuity of 6/9, and the calculated magnification causes 3-point print to have the same retinal image size as unmagnified 10.8- to 12.9-point print. The FOV with this magnifier was more than 60 characters long at the recommended magnifier-to-eye distance. This FOV is well beyond the total perceptual span of approximately 20 characters identified as necessary for everyday reading of normal text, involving a staircase pattern of saccadic eye movements.
29
The same protocol was used for each reading condition. The subjects were informed that the reading was to be timed, but that they should read accurately at their normal speed rather than trying to complete the task in the shortest time possible. No verbal prompts, encouragements, or interruptions occurred during the test. Reading speed was calculated as the number of words read correctly per minute. Words missed or misread were excluded from the calculation: words read twice were counted only once.
Subjects first read the 12-point print aloud, with their reading correction if worn (UNMAG).
The same text used in the unmagnified reading, but produced in 3-point print, was used to train the subject to use the magnifier. Subjects then read with the magnifier under two different conditions—MOVEMAG and MOVETEXT—the order of which was randomized. The text was placed onto a clipboard and subjects held the magnifier in one hand and the clipboard in the other.
For training, subjects read the text sample once, with prompts and encouragement from the experimenter, according to a prearranged protocol.
Because of the compact size of the magnifier compared with the cumbersome clipboard with the text, normal subjects were expected to find the “moving text” condition difficult. To avoid this problem, the practice session was conducted twice, first with the text in the nondominant hand and then in the dominant hand. At the end of the second practice session, subjects were given a choice as to which hand they used to move the text with during the following timed reading session. Subjects showed a unanimous preference for moving the text with the dominant hand. The session under timed conditions took place immediately after the practice session.
Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test.
Grip Strength Measurement.
The Finger-Nose Test.
The mean reading speeds for both groups of subjects in the different reading conditions are given in
Table 1 . Comparison of means was performed using the Student's
t-test. The reading speed for unmagnified text showed no significant difference between the older and younger groups.
Within-group comparison also showed no significant difference between the unmagnified and magnified reading for the younger subjects, whether they were moving the magnifier or moving the text. There was, however, a marked and statistically significant reduction in the reading speed for the older group when they used the magnifier (whether moving the magnifier or the text). Subjects in both groups tended to make more mistakes when reading with a magnifier, although there was no consistent pattern. In two older subjects, the mistake rate amounted to >5% of the total when they read by moving the text.
Reading speeds with the magnifier were converted to relative scores for both moving the magnifier (RELMAG) and moving the text (RELTEXT). The result was determined by dividing the speed of reading with the magnifier, by the subject's unmagnified reading speed. Little difference was found between magnified reading moving the magnifier or the text (i.e., RELMAG showed no significant difference from RELTEXT). This result was true of both the older and younger groups.
Table 2shows the mean and standard deviation of the manual dexterity scores for both groups of subjects. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the older and the younger groups for each of the dexterity tests. The dexterity scores were those obtained with the dominant hand only, because this was the hand used in each reading condition to manipulate the moving object. There were significant differences between the two groups in the Jebsen-Taylor total scores (i.e., the time for all the seven subtests added together) and the results of the finger-nose test. Measurement of grip strength, however, showed no significant difference between the groups. All but two of the Jebsen-Taylor subtests showed significant differences between the older and the younger groups of subjects. Picking up large heavy objects showed the most significant difference. The handwriting subtest contributed heavily to the total score, because it is the task that takes the longest to complete, and it also showed a significant difference between the two age groups. The only two subtests that showed no significant difference between the groups were simulated page turning and simulated feeding.
Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to investigate the relationship between reading speed and manual dexterity for all 27 subjects together. The finger-nose score showed a strong negative correlation with reading speed for both moving the magnifier
(Fig. 1)and moving the text
(Table 3) , as did the Jebsen-Taylor total score
(Fig. 2) . When each of the Jebsen-Taylor subtests was analyzed separately, some showed good correlation (e.g., handwriting and picking up large, heavy objects), whereas for others, the relationship was negligible (e.g., simulated feeding; simulated page turning). Grip strength showed no correlation with reading speed.
Within-group analysis controlling for age and group (partial correlation coefficient) also showed a correlation between Jebsen-Taylor total score and reading speed moving the magnifier (r = −0.4594; P = 0.10) or moving the text (r = −0.5243; P = 0.004); and between the finger-nose test and reading speed moving the magnifier (r = −0.4802; P = 0.008) or moving the text (r = −0.5248; P = 0.004). Grip strength did not correlate with reading speed when the magnifier was used in either condition.
Analysis of the results from all 27 subjects showed a significant correlation between the manual dexterity and reading speed with the magnifier. The strongest correlation was found with the finger-nose test, independent of whether subjects moved the magnifier or the text. To be sure that the result we found was due to the effect of manual dexterity, it was important to eliminate any other possible factors that could affect reading speed with a magnifier. Even though the subjects in both groups had normal corrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, these abilities are age dependent, and so the mean performance of the younger group would inevitably be significantly better. We suggest, however, that this was not a significant factor in this experiment, because the subjects acted as their own controls, with performance being compared with and without the magnifier. Any effects of reduced acuity or contrast sensitivity on reading performance would therefore be present in both conditions. The FOV of the magnifier was identical for both groups, and the acuity reserves, contrast reserves, and the FOV of the magnifier for both groups were above the level recommended by Whittaker and Lovie-Kitchin
5 for high-fluency reading. None of the subjects had any cognitive impairment, as measured with the MMSE, which may have affected their ability to understand the training they received.
The most obvious potential confounding factor is age. It is possible that age has a concurrent effect on both manual dexterity and reading performance. If this were true, correlations between dexterity and reading performance could exist simply because they were both affected by age, but in fact there may be no direct relationship between the two. However, it was found that the correlation remained significant when performed within group, thus correcting for the influence of age.
There were interesting differences in the correlations found between the individual subtests in the Jebsen-Taylor and the reading speed. Because it is difficult to determine the specific types of hand function needed to manipulate a hand-held magnifier, we cannot speculate on reasons for the relationships found. This finding does affirm, however, the claim by Jebsen et al.
22 that the design of the dexterity test measures different aspects of hand function. It also suggests that several different aspects of hand function are involved in magnifier use. The subtests which showed the strongest correlation to reading with a magnifier were handwriting and picking up large, heavy objects: on the contrary, simulated page turning and simulated feeding showed no correlation. Although we tested a wide range of dexterity skills, there may be other equally relevant aspects of hand function that we did not consider.
Although the Jebsen-Taylor test is standardized and has been shown to be valid and repeatable, it is time-consuming and exacting to set up. It is also heavily reliant on good vision (e.g., the handwriting test), and could not therefore be used directly for visually impaired subjects. The finger-nose test result showed the best correlation to reading speed. It is quick to perform, does not rely so heavily on good vision, requires little training of the subject, and in this study showed a high correlation with the total Jebsen-Taylor score (r = +0.674 for the dominant hand). Unfortunately, the method of performing the test varies, accurate timing may be difficult, and repeatability has not been determined. Further studies of this test are needed to determine its practicality and clinical prognostic usefulness.
The results of this study suggest that manual dexterity could be a significant factor in determining the reading rates of untrained individuals when using a hand-held magnifier. It is acknowledged that in the case of patients with low-vision, this would be most likely to apply to those who otherwise had no visual contraindications to fast reading: that is, they had appropriate acuity reserve, contrast reserve, and scotoma size.
5 For subjects whose visual characteristics limited the potential for fast reading, a dexterity limitation may be less significant. The results of this study, however, suggest that dexterity testing could be useful in identifying elderly patients who may have difficulties reading with a magnifier because of their physical abilities. This could assist clinicians in making a decision concerning the best type of magnifier to prescribe, to help minimize rejection by patients and avoid delay in visual rehabilitation. This study suggests that further research on the effect of dexterity on magnifier reading is warranted, but it appears sensible to counsel those individuals with poorer dexterity to choose a magnifier that requires less handling (for example, a bar or a stand magnifier) and to hold any objects that need to be manipulated with the dominant hand.
Submitted for publication January 2, 2007; revised April 10 and 23, 2007; accepted June 6, 2007.
Disclosure:
C. Dickinson, None;
M. Shim, None
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be marked “
advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Corresponding author: Chris Dickinson, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Moffat Building, PO Box 88, Manchester, M60 1QD, UK;
[email protected].
Table 1. Within- and between-Group Comparisons of Reading Speeds in the Different Reading Conditions
Table 1. Within- and between-Group Comparisons of Reading Speeds in the Different Reading Conditions
Group | UNMAG | MOVEMAG | P * | MOVETEXT | P * | RELMAG | RELTEXT | P |
Older | | | | | | | | |
Mean | 153.06 | 97.39 | <0.0001 | 91.28 | <0.0001 | 0.65 | 0.59 | 0.4299 |
SD | 33.47 | 29.24 | | 40.40 | | 0.18 | 0.21 | |
Younger | | | | | | | | |
Mean | 161.99 | 159.42 | 0.8650 | 171.28 | 0.5644 | 0.99 | 1.07 | 0.0941 |
SD | 40.78 | 41.02 | | 36.87 | | 0.11 | 0.13 | |
P between groups | 0.535 | <0.0001 | | <0.0001 | | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
Table 2. A Comparison of the Manual Dexterity Measures for the Older and Younger Groups of Subjects
Table 2. A Comparison of the Manual Dexterity Measures for the Older and Younger Groups of Subjects
| Older (n = 15) | Younger (n = 12) | P * |
Finger-nose test | 2.84 (0.61) | 2.08 (0.32) | 0.001 |
Grip strength (lb) | 59.51 (22.33) | 71.11 (13.17) | 0.127 |
Jebsen-Taylor total score | 52.26 (11.77) | 37.29 (6.86) | 0.001 |
Jebsen-Taylor subtest scores | | | |
Handwriting | 17.79 (7.19) | 9.49 (3.05) | 0.001 |
Simulated page turning | 4.70 (1.56) | 4.02 (1.41) | 0.251 |
Picking up small objects | 6.28 (1.24) | 5.11 (0.87) | 0.010 |
Stacking checkers | 7.41 (2.29) | 5.48 (1.70) | 0.023 |
Simulated feeding | 8.20 (2.48) | 7.38 (1.91) | 0.356 |
Picking up large, light objects | 3.94 (0.95) | 2.92 (0.64) | 0.004 |
Picking up large, heavy objects | 3.94 (0.65) | 2.89 (0.44) | <0.001 |
Table 3. Pearson's Product Moment Correlation Coefficients between Relative Reading Speeds with Magnifier and the Dexterity Tests
Table 3. Pearson's Product Moment Correlation Coefficients between Relative Reading Speeds with Magnifier and the Dexterity Tests
| RELMAG | | RELTEXT | |
| r | P | r | P |
Finger-nose score | −0.605 | 0.001 | −0.654 | <0.001 |
Grip strength (lb) | 0.231 | 0.246 | 0.238 | 0.231 |
Jebsen-Taylor total score | −0.497 | 0.008 | −0.601 | 0.001 |
Jebsen-Taylor subtest scores | | | | |
Writing | −0.434 | 0.024 | −0.610 | 0.001 |
Simulated page turning | −0.261 | 0.188 | −0.321 | 0.103 |
Picking up small objects | −0.438 | 0.022 | −0.465 | 0.015 |
Stacking checkers | −0.413 | 0.032 | −0.305 | 0.121 |
Simulated feeding | −0.226 | 0.257 | −0.185 | 0.355 |
Picking up large, light objects | −0.381 | 0.050 | −0.509 | 0.007 |
Picking up large, heavy objects | −0.462 | 0.015 | −0.616 | 0.001 |
DickinsonC. Low Vision Principles and Practice. 1998;300.Butterworth Heinemann Oxford, UK.319
MargrainTH. Helping blind and partially sighted people to read: the effectiveness of low vision aids. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:919–921.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]van RensGH, ChmielowskiRJ, LemmensWA. Results obtained with low vision aids: a retrospective study. Doc Ophthalmol. 1991;78:205–210.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]LeatSJ, FryerA, RumneyNJ. Outcome of low vision aid provision-the effectiveness of a low vision clinic. Optom Vis Sci. 1994;71:199–206.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]WhittakerSG, Lovie-KitchinJ. Visual requirements for reading. Optom Vis Sci. 1993;70:54–65.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]MohammedZ, DickinsonCM. The inter-relationship between magnification, field of view and contrast reserve: the effect on reading performance. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2000;20:464–472.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]LeggeGE, RubinGS, PelliDG, SchleskeMM. Psychophysics of reading, II. Low vision. Vis Res. 1985;25:253–266.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]WatsonGR, WrightV, LongS, De l'AuneW. A low vision reading comprehension test. J Vis Imp Blindness. 1996;90:486–494.
GoodrichGL, MehrEB, QuillmanRD, ShawHK, WileyJK. Training and practice effects in performance with low-vision aids: a preliminary study. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1977;54:312–318.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]den BrinkerBPLM, BeekPJ. Reading with magnifiers. Ergonomics. 1996;39:1231–1248.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Department of Health Registered blind and partially sighted people year ending 31 March 2003 in England. ;Available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/07/23/38/04072338.pdf. Accessed December 19, 2006.
HackelME, WolfeGA, BangSM, CanfieldJS. Changes in hand function in the aging adult as determined by the Jebsen test of hand function. Phys Ther. 1992;72:373–378.
[PubMed]MathiowetzV, KashmanN, VollandG, WeberK, DoweM, RogersS. Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1985;66:69–74.
[PubMed]MathiowetzV, WeberK, KashmanN, VollandG. Adult norms for the nine hole peg test of finger dexterity. Occup Ther J Res. 1985;5:24–37.
DesrosiersJ, HebertR, BravoG, DutilE. Upper-extremity motor co-ordination of healthy elderly people. Age Ageing. 1995;24:108–112.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]CarmeliE, PatishH, ColemanR. The aging hand. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003;58:146–152.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]ZhangY, NiuJ, Kelly-HayesM, ChaissonCE, AliabdiP, FelsonDT. Prevalence of symptomatic hand osteoarthritis and its impact on functional status among the elderly: The Framingham study. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156:1021–1027.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]MannoniA, BrigantiMP, Di BariM, et al. Epidemiological profile of symptomatic osteoarthritis in older adults: a population based study in Dicomano, Italy. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62:576–578.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]TsengBS, MarshDR, HamiltonMT, et al. Strength and aerobic training attenuate muscle wasting and improve resistance to the development of disability with aging. J Gerontol A Bio Sci Med Sci. 1995;50:113–119.
LouisED, WendtKJ, FordB. Senile tremor: what is the prevalence and severity of tremor in older adults?. Gerontology. 2000;46:12–16.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]MathiowetzV, WeberK, VollandG, KashmanN. Reliability and validity of hand strength evaluations. J Hand Surg. 1984;9:222–226.
[CrossRef] JebsenRH, TaylorN, TrieschmannRB, TrotterMJ, HowardLA. An objective standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969;50:311–319.
[PubMed]GrinkerRR, SahsAL. Neurology. 1966; 6th ed. 40–41.Charles C. Thomas Springfield, IL.
MantyjarviM, LaitinenT. Normal values for the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:261–266.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]FolsteinMF, FolsteinSE, McHughPR. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–198.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]DickinsonCM, RabbittPMA. Simulated visual impairment: effects on text comprehension and reading speed. Clin Vis Sci. 1991;6:301–308.
SpilichGJ. Life-span components of text processing: structural and procedural differences. J Verb Learn Verb Behav. 1983;22:231–244.
[CrossRef] Eschenbach Optik GmbH & Co. Catalogue 2001/2002. ;Nürnberg, Germany.
RaynerK, WellAD, PollatsekA. Asymmetry of the effective visual field in reading. Percept Psychophys. 1980;27:537–544.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]LynchKB, BridleMJ. Validity of the Jebsen-Taylor hand function test in predicting activities of daily living. Occup Ther J Res. 1989;9:316–318.
FelderR, JamesK, BrownC, LemonS, RevealM. Dexterity testing as a predicator of oral care ability. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994;42:1081–1086.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]KumarM, HickeyS, ShawS. Manual dexterity and successful hearing aid use. J Laryngol Otol. 2000;114:593–597.
[PubMed]LottLA, SchneckME, Haegerstrom-PortnoyG, BrabynJA, GildengorinGL, WestCG. Reading performance in older adults with good acuity. Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78:316–324.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]AgnewPJ, MaasF. Hand function related to age and sex. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1982;63:269–271.
[PubMed]JostyIC, TylerMP, ShewellPC, RobertsAH. Grip and pinch strength variations in different types of workers. J Hand Surg. 1997;22:266–269.