Binocular advantages for parafoveal processing in reading

Visual Quality, Motility Behavior, and Retinal Changes Associated with Reading Tasks Performed on Electronic Devices

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to objectively evaluate visual discomfort using an eye tracker and aberrometer after a 21-min reading session on an iPad and an Ebook. Additionally, retinal changes were analyzed using optical coherence tomography (OCT).

METHODS

A total of 31 young subjects (24 ± 4 years) participated in this study. They read for 21 min on an Ebook and for another 21 min on an iPad under controlled lighting conditions while their eye movements were monitored using an eye tracker. Aberrometry and retinal OCT measurements were taken before and after each reading session. Parameters such as pupil diameter, fixations, saccades, blinks, total aberration, high-order aberration, low-order aberration, and central and peripheral retinal thickness in the nine early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) areas were measured for each reading situation. Statistical analysis was performed on the collected data.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two devices were observed in terms of the different types of eye movements or the changes in retinal thickness. However, the aberrometric analysis showed variations in post-reading situations depending on the device used.

CONCLUSION

Reading speed and visual discomfort resulting from electronic device usage can be objectively assessed using an eye tracker and aberrometer. Additionally, changes found in central and peripheral retinal thickness between the two devices and the baseline measurements were not significant and remained relatively stable.

Reading with central vision loss: binocular summation and inhibition

Purpose

There are conflicting reports as to whether there is a binocular advantage or disadvantage when reading with central vision loss. This study examined binocular reading summation in patients with macular degeneration.

Methods

Seventy‐one patients with bilateral central vision loss [mean age: 63 (S.D. = 21) years] participated. Reading performances during binocular and monocular viewing with the better eye (i.e., the eye with the best monocular visual acuity) were evaluated using different versions of the Italian MNREAD reading chart (www.precision‐vision.com). Fixation stability and preferred retinal loci (PRLs) were recorded monocularly for each eye. The overall sample was split into inhibition, equality, and summation groups based on the binocular ratio (i.e., binocular/monocular) of the maximum reading speed.

Results

41% of patients experienced binocular inhibition, 42% summation, and 17% equality. Binocular reading speed of the inhibition group was approximately 30 words per minute slower than those of the equality and summation groups, although the inhibition group had the best visual acuity. These patients generally had monocular PRLs in non‐corresponding locations temporal or nasal to the scotoma, had the largest interocular acuity difference and lacked residual stereopsis. The three groups did not differ in fixational control, contrast sensitivity or critical print size.

Conclusions

Equal proportions of patients with central vision loss show binocular reading summation and inhibition. Patients with binocular reading inhibition have poorer reading performance and different clinical characteristics than those with binocular reading summation and equality.

Education and visual neuroscience: A mini-review

Neuroscience, especially visual neuroscience, is a burgeoning field that has greatly shaped the format and efficacy of education. Moreover, findings from visual neuroscience are an ongoing source of great progress in pedagogy. In this mini-review, I review existing evidence and areas of active research to describe the fundamental questions and general applications for visual neuroscience as it applies to education. First, I categorize the research questions and future directions for the role of visual neuroscience in education. Second, I juxtapose opposing views on the roles of neuroscience in education and reveal the "neuromyths" propagated under the guise of educational neuroscience. Third, I summarize the policies and practices applied in different countries and for different age ranges. Fourth, I address and discuss the merits of visual neuroscience in art education and of visual perception theories (e.g., those concerned with perceptual organization with respect to space and time) in reading education. I consider how vision-deprived students could benefit from current knowledge of brain plasticity and visual rehabilitation methods involving compensation from other sensory systems. I also consider the potential educational value of instructional methods based on statistical learning in the visual domain. Finally, I outline the accepted translational framework for applying findings from educational neuroscience to pedagogical theory.