Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science Cover Image for Volume 65, Issue 7
June 2024
Volume 65, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2024
Peripheral reading improvement after non-invasive electrical stimulation of early visual areas
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Andrew E Silva
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • Melanie Mungalsingh
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • Louise Raudzus
    Optics and Mechatronics, Hochschule Aalen, Aalen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
  • Benjamin Thompson
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
    Centre for Eye and Vision Research Limited, Hong Kong
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Andrew Silva None; Melanie Mungalsingh None; Louise Raudzus None; Benjamin Thompson None
  • Footnotes
    Support  Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI Grant 349095), the Velux Stiftung Foundation (Grant 1188), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC Grants RGPIN-05394 and RGPAS-477166), and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government and InnoHK.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2024, Vol.65, 1004. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Andrew E Silva, Melanie Mungalsingh, Louise Raudzus, Benjamin Thompson; Peripheral reading improvement after non-invasive electrical stimulation of early visual areas. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2024;65(7):1004.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : While reading text with peripheral vision is difficult, it becomes necessary when central vision is impaired due to macular degeneration. In two within-subject, double-blind, placebo-controlled experiments testing participants with normal vision, we investigated whether two different non-invasive transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) protocols targeting early visual areas can improve peripheral reading ability.

Methods : All procedures were identical across both experiments, except that Exp 1 (N = 10) used transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS: 2mA peak to peak, 20 min, 30 sec ramps) applied bilaterally to early visual areas and Exp 2 (N = 10) used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS: 2mA, 20 min, 30 sec ramps), with the anode on the occipital pole and the cathode on a cheek. Each experiment comprised an active tES session and a placebo tES session, randomly ordered. On each stimulation session, participants performed a 15-sentence reading test before tES (pre-test), during tES (during), 5 min after tES (post5), and 30 min after tES (post30). Sentences were presented 10 degrees below fixation, one word at a time. Participants read each sentence aloud, and fixation was verified with eye tracking. Accuracy was calculated as the proportion of words read correctly, and the effect of tES was quantified as the accuracy difference between pre-test and each of the post-tests.

Results : Active tRNS induced a significantly greater improvement than placebo, F(1,9) = 19.6, p = 0.002 (active improvement: 4.8% ± 2.1, placebo improvement: 0.5% ± 1.4). In contrast, active tDCS did not differ from placebo (active: 4.0% ± 1.5, placebo: 4.9% ± 1.4).

Conclusions : TRNS improved peripheral reading, but tDCS did not. TRNS may have delivered more effective excitatory neuromodulation to the relatively deep cortical area supporting 10-degree eccentric vision. The tRNS effect may also benefit from delivering excitatory stimulation with both electrodes. Although additional work must clarify the factors that influence the effectiveness of different stimulation protocols, tRNS may be generally useful for improving peripheral reading.

This abstract was presented at the 2024 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, WA, May 5-9, 2024.

 

Reading Stimuli. The text size and presentation speed were personalized to avoid ceiling and floor performance.

Reading Stimuli. The text size and presentation speed were personalized to avoid ceiling and floor performance.

 

Results. Differences between active and placebo effects and confidence intervals from Exp 1 and Exp 2. Values above 0 indicate a greater effect of active stimulation.

Results. Differences between active and placebo effects and confidence intervals from Exp 1 and Exp 2. Values above 0 indicate a greater effect of active stimulation.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×