The influence of reading direction on hemianopic reading disorders

Reading Difficulties in Individuals with Homonymous Visual Field Defects: A Systematic Review of Reported Interventions

Reading difficulties are amongst the most commonly reported problems in individuals with homonymous visual field defects (HVFDs). To be able to provide guidance for healthcare professionals considering offering reading training, researchers in this field and interested individuals with HVFDs, this systematic review aims to (1) provide an overview of the contextual and intervention characteristics of all published HVFD interventions and (2) generate insights into the different reading outcome measures that these studies adopted. A search on PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Web of Science was conducted up to February 2, 2023. All intervention studies for HVFD in which reading was measured were included. Data was collected about the intervention type, session duration, number of sessions, the intensity, duration, circumstance of the interventions, country in which the intervention was studied and reading measures. Sixty records are included, describing 70 interventions in total of which 21 are specifically reading interventions. Overall, adjusted saccadic behaviour interventions occur most in the literature. A wide range within all intervention characteristics was observed. Forty-nine records reported task-performance reading measures, and 33 records reported self-reported reading measures. The majority of task-performance measures are based on self-developed paragraph reading tasks with a time-based outcome measure (e.g. words per minute). Future research could benefit from making use of validated reading tests, approaching the measurement of reading mixed-methods and providing participants the possibility to supply outcomes relevant to them.

Vertical and horizontal reading training in patients with hemianopia and its effect on reading eye movements

Vertical reading training (VRTr) increases reading speed (RS) significantly in patients with hemianopic field defects (HFD). We ask, how eye movements (EM) contribute to this improvement and whether EM-behavior is affected by the side of HFD. Twenty-one patients, randomly assigned to VRTr or horizontal RTr, trained reading single lines from a screen at home, for 4 weeks. In the clinic, we recorded EM while reading short sentences aloud from a screen before training (T1), directly (T2) and 4 weeks afterwards (T3). RS-screen was correlated with RS during reading printed paragraphs (RS-print) to assess the transfer to everyday life. RS-screen and RS-print correlated positively (horizontal: r > 0.8, vertical: r > 0.9) at all times. Vertical RS did not exceed horizontal RS. We found significant negative correlations of EM-variables and RS-print: in right-HFD with the number of forward saccades (T1: r =  - 0.79, T2: r =  - 0.94), in left-HFD with the steps during return sweeps (T1: r =  - 0.83, T2: r =  - 0.56). Training effects remained stable at T3. EM-improvement was specific for the RTr and the side of the HFD: in right-HFD fewer forward saccades after VRTr, in left-HFD fewer steps during return sweeps after HRTr. RTr on a screen transfers to reading printed text in real-life situations.Trial registration: The study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials register: DRKS-ID: DRKS00018843, March 13th, 2020.

A Feasibility Study on a Portable Vision Device for Patients with Stroke and Brain Tumours

This prospective, single-centre cohort study aimed to evaluate the impact of a portable vision reading device, OrCam Read, on vision-related quality-of-life and independent functional status in patients with low vision due to stroke or brain tumours. Six patients with poor visual acuity or visual field defects due to a stroke or a brain tumour were enrolled at a U.S. Ophthalmology Department. Participants were trained to use OrCam Read and given a loaner device for the 1 month duration of the study. Various assessments, including daily function tests, the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25, and the 10-item neuro-ophthalmic supplement, were administered at the first and last visits. Patients' experience with the device was evaluated with weekly telephone and end-of-study satisfaction surveys. The main outcome measures were the patient satisfaction with OrCam and the mean assessment scores between enrolment and final visits. The intervention with OrCam significantly improved patients' ability to complete daily tasks and participants reported good satisfaction with the device. The results also show non-significant improvement with distant activities, dependency, and role difficulties. Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of studying vision-related quality-of-life using a portable vision device in this patient population and pave the way for a larger study to validate the results of this study.

Training of vertical versus horizontal reading in patients with hemianopia - a randomized and controlled study

HYPOTHESIS

Patients with hemianopic field defects (HFD) might benefit from reading text in vertical orientation if they place the text in the seeing hemifield along the vertical midline.

METHODS

We assigned 21 patients with HFD randomly to either vertical or horizontal reading training. They trained reading single lines of texts from a computer screen at home for 2 × 30 min/day, 5 days/week, for 4 weeks. The main outcome variable was reading speed (RS) during reading standardized paragraphs of printed text (IReST) aloud. RS was assessed before training (T1), directly after training (T2) and 4 weeks later (T3). Quality of life (QoL) was assessed by Impact of Visual Impairment (IVI) questionnaire.

RESULTS

Vertical training improved RS in the vertical direction significantly. Only patients with right HFD benefited. Horizontal training improved RS in horizontal diection significantly, but much more in patients with left than in those with right HFD. Both effects remained stable at T3. RS during training at the computer improved highly significantly and correlated strongly with RS of printed text (Pearson r= > 0.9). QoL: Vertical training showed a statistically significant improvement in the complete IVI-score, patients with right HFD in the emotional IVI-score.

CONCLUSIONS

The improvements of RS were specific for the training. The stable effect indicates that the patients can apply the newly learned strategies to everyday life. The side of the HFD plays an essential role: Left-HFD patients benefitted from horizontal training, right-HFD patients from vertical training. However, the vertical RS did not reach the level of horizontal RS. The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00018843).

How Does Vertical Reading Affect Reading Speed?

PURPOSE

Vertical reading is an adaptive reading strategy sometimes used in homonymous hemianopia. This study aimed to measure horizontal and vertical reading speeds in visually normal volunteers using the Radner Reading Chart.

METHODS

Fifteen orthoptic students, mean age 19.7 years, took part in this repeated measures study. Participants read sentences aloud from the Radner Reading Chart horizontally and rotated vertically, to read up and down the line. Words read correctly and the time taken to read each sentence were recorded.

RESULTS

Reading speeds were calculated (words read correctly per second) for horizontal text (2.95 words per second) and for vertical text, reading up the line (1.73 words per second) and reading down the line (1.57 words per second). Reading horizontal text was significantly faster than reading vertical text. Reading horizontal text was 1.22 words per second faster than reading text vertically up (p < 0.0001) and 1.38 words per second faster than text vertically down (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between reading text vertically up the line and vertically down the line (0.16 words per second, p = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

Horizontal reading speed, measured with the Radner Reading Chart, was significantly faster than both vertical reading speeds. There was no significant difference between reading vertically up the line and reading vertically down the line. The slower time taken to read the vertically orientated sentences had a greater effect on reading speed than the number of errors made.