Pattern of reading eye movements during monovision contact lens wear in presbyopes

Abstract Monovision can be used as a method to correct presbyopia with contact lenses (CL) but its effect on reading behavior is still poorly understood. In this study eye movements (EM) were recorded in fifteen presbyopic participants, naïve to monovision, whilst they read arrays of words, non-word...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fabrizio Zeri, Shehzad A. Naroo, Pierluigi Zoccolotti, Maria De Luca
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Nature Portfolio 2018
Materias:
R
Q
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/1a23d9c04a534c339bf0602a8395be55
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:1a23d9c04a534c339bf0602a8395be55
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:1a23d9c04a534c339bf0602a8395be552021-12-02T11:40:36ZPattern of reading eye movements during monovision contact lens wear in presbyopes10.1038/s41598-018-33934-62045-2322https://doaj.org/article/1a23d9c04a534c339bf0602a8395be552018-10-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33934-6https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract Monovision can be used as a method to correct presbyopia with contact lenses (CL) but its effect on reading behavior is still poorly understood. In this study eye movements (EM) were recorded in fifteen presbyopic participants, naïve to monovision, whilst they read arrays of words, non-words, and text passages to assess whether monovision affected their reading. Three conditions were compared, using daily disposable CLs: baseline (near correction in both eyes), conventional monovision (distance correction in the dominant eye, near correction in the non-dominant eye), and crossed monovision (the reversal of conventional monovision). Behavioral measures (reading speed and accuracy) and EM parameters (single fixation duration, number of fixations, dwell time per item, percentage of regressions, and percentage of skipped items) were analyzed. When reading passages, no differences in behavioral and EM measures were seen in any comparison of the three conditions. The number of fixations and dwell time significantly increased for both monovision and crossed monovision with respect to baseline only with word and non-word arrays. It appears that monovision did not appreciably alter visual processing when reading meaningful texts but some limited stress of the EM pattern was observed only with arrays of unrelated or meaningless items under monovision, which require the reader to have more in-depth controlled visual processing.Fabrizio ZeriShehzad A. NarooPierluigi ZoccolottiMaria De LucaNature PortfolioarticleMonovisionText PassagesFixation DurationPresbyopia CorrectionReading SpeedMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 8, Iss 1, Pp 1-9 (2018)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic Monovision
Text Passages
Fixation Duration
Presbyopia Correction
Reading Speed
Medicine
R
Science
Q
spellingShingle Monovision
Text Passages
Fixation Duration
Presbyopia Correction
Reading Speed
Medicine
R
Science
Q
Fabrizio Zeri
Shehzad A. Naroo
Pierluigi Zoccolotti
Maria De Luca
Pattern of reading eye movements during monovision contact lens wear in presbyopes
description Abstract Monovision can be used as a method to correct presbyopia with contact lenses (CL) but its effect on reading behavior is still poorly understood. In this study eye movements (EM) were recorded in fifteen presbyopic participants, naïve to monovision, whilst they read arrays of words, non-words, and text passages to assess whether monovision affected their reading. Three conditions were compared, using daily disposable CLs: baseline (near correction in both eyes), conventional monovision (distance correction in the dominant eye, near correction in the non-dominant eye), and crossed monovision (the reversal of conventional monovision). Behavioral measures (reading speed and accuracy) and EM parameters (single fixation duration, number of fixations, dwell time per item, percentage of regressions, and percentage of skipped items) were analyzed. When reading passages, no differences in behavioral and EM measures were seen in any comparison of the three conditions. The number of fixations and dwell time significantly increased for both monovision and crossed monovision with respect to baseline only with word and non-word arrays. It appears that monovision did not appreciably alter visual processing when reading meaningful texts but some limited stress of the EM pattern was observed only with arrays of unrelated or meaningless items under monovision, which require the reader to have more in-depth controlled visual processing.
format article
author Fabrizio Zeri
Shehzad A. Naroo
Pierluigi Zoccolotti
Maria De Luca
author_facet Fabrizio Zeri
Shehzad A. Naroo
Pierluigi Zoccolotti
Maria De Luca
author_sort Fabrizio Zeri
title Pattern of reading eye movements during monovision contact lens wear in presbyopes
title_short Pattern of reading eye movements during monovision contact lens wear in presbyopes
title_full Pattern of reading eye movements during monovision contact lens wear in presbyopes
title_fullStr Pattern of reading eye movements during monovision contact lens wear in presbyopes
title_full_unstemmed Pattern of reading eye movements during monovision contact lens wear in presbyopes
title_sort pattern of reading eye movements during monovision contact lens wear in presbyopes
publisher Nature Portfolio
publishDate 2018
url https://doaj.org/article/1a23d9c04a534c339bf0602a8395be55
work_keys_str_mv AT fabriziozeri patternofreadingeyemovementsduringmonovisioncontactlenswearinpresbyopes
AT shehzadanaroo patternofreadingeyemovementsduringmonovisioncontactlenswearinpresbyopes
AT pierluigizoccolotti patternofreadingeyemovementsduringmonovisioncontactlenswearinpresbyopes
AT mariadeluca patternofreadingeyemovementsduringmonovisioncontactlenswearinpresbyopes
_version_ 1718395566124171264