Assessing optimal colour and illumination to facilitate reading: an analysis of print size.

PURPOSE: This study examined how optimal colour/illumination conditions and the efficacy of the iPad, LuxIQ and Smart Bulb varied as a function of print size in younger, older and visually impaired adults. METHODS: Participants with visual impairments and simulated low vision (SLV) read the MNRead using the iPad, LuxIQ and Smart Bulb. RESULTS: In the impairment condition at 1.20 logMAR, the iPad (M = 9.49, 95% CI [3.18, 19.42]) and LuxIQ (M = 15.95, 95% CI [9.54, 24.86]) improved the reading speeds. At 0.80 logMAR (SLV), all devices improved reading speeds of older adults (iPad (M = 28.70, 95% CI [14.65, 42.51]); LuxIQ (M = 49.63, 95% CI [30.04, 69.68]); Smart Bulb (M = 23.11, 95% CI [3.33, 42.11])), but in younger adults only the LuxIQ (M = 13.04, 95% CI [3.21, 21.27]) did so. In the impairment condition, the iPad (M = 5.54, 95% CI [0.31, 12.13]) and LuxIQ (M = 13.90, 95% CI [7.88, 23.49]) improved reading speeds. In the SLV condition, age was a significant predictor of reading speed at 1.20 logMAR (F3,164  = 10.74, p < 0.001, Adj. R2  = 0.16). At 0.80 logMAR, age and luminance, but not colour, were significant predictors (F3,164  = 52.52, p < 0.001, Adj. R2  = 0.49). In the impairment condition, both age and lux were significant predictors of reading speed at 1.20 (F3,85  = 7.14, p < 0.001, Adj. R2  = 0.20) and 0.80 logMAR (F3,85  = 7.97, p < 0.001, Adj. R2  = 0.22), but colour was not. CONCLUSIONS: Light source effectiveness and optimal colour/illumination vary as a function of print size. It appears that print size is the most important factor for improving reading speed. As print size decreases, luminance becomes crucial, and only at the smallest print sizes does the effect of colour become useful.

Validation of the International Reading Speed Texts in a Sample of Older (60+) Canadian Adults.

SIGNIFICANCE: On average, older adults (60+) with normal vision read the International Reading Speed Texts (IReST) 37.8 words per minute slower than the standardized values provided by the IReST manufacturer. When assessing reading speed in older adults, clinicians should bear in mind that the IReST norms do not account for these age-related differences. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to validate the IReST in an English-speaking Canadian sample of older adults (60+). METHODS: Canadian English-speaking older adults (n = 25) read all 10 IReST aloud using the same protocol from the original IReST validation study. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the older adult sample and the published IReST values for each text (mean difference, -37.84; 95% confidence interval, -41.34 to -34.34). CONCLUSIONS: Reading speeds of older (60+) Canadian adults fell outside of the standardized values of the English language IReST. Researchers/clinicians who wish to assess older adults' reading speed using the IReST ought to take this discrepancy into account.

Assessing optimal colour and illumination to facilitate reading.

PURPOSE: This study examined the effectiveness of the LuxIQ, the Apple iPad and a smart bulb in assessing optimal colour and illumination to facilitate reading in younger, older and visually impaired adults. METHODS: Participants read standardised texts at baseline (normal lighting/no device), then using the Apple iPad, LuxIQ and smart bulb, with their normal vision (20/20 condition) and using a simulated reduction in visual acuity/contrast sensitivity (20/80 condition). Visually impaired participants followed the same procedure used in the 20/80 condition. RESULTS: There was a significant interaction between condition and device in younger, F(1.5, 43.51) = 30.41, p < 0.001, ω2  = 0.34 and older, F(1.5, 4.51) = 4.51, p = 0.03, ω2  = 0.05 adults with normal vision, and there was a significant effect of device, F(2, 58) = 5.95, p = 0.004, ω2  = 0.12 in visually impaired adults. In the 20/20 condition, age and colour predicted reading speed, F(3, 176) = 36.25, p < 0.001, Adj. R2  = 0.37, whereas age, lighting and colour predicted reading speed, F(3, 176) = 36.25, p < 0.001, Adj. R2  = 0.37 in the 20/80 condition. In the visual impairment condition, lighting, colour and impairment severity predicted reading speed, F(3, 85) = 10.10, p < 0.001, Adj. R2  = 0.24. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical implications of this study are that reading speeds improve in individuals with low vision under improved lighting conditions, specifically, with higher levels of luminance and colour temperature. The effectiveness of the devices varied across groups; however, the LuxIQ was the only device to improve reading speeds from baseline in older adults with visual impairments.

Validation of the International Reading Speed Texts in a Canadian Sample.

SIGNIFICANCE: The International Reading Speed Texts (IReST) is a valid measure of reading speed in a Canadian sample. However, if clinicians desire to assess reading comprehension using the IReST, this will significantly reduce reading speeds of individuals with normal vision or reduced visual acuity and therefore should use the values presented here. PURPOSE: The purposes of this study are (1) to validate the IReST in an English-speaking Canadian sample and (2) to examine how reading comprehension questions and reduced visual acuity affect reading speed on the IReST. METHODS: For study 1, Canadian English speakers (n = 25) read all 10 IReST following the procedures used in the original IReST validation. For study 2, Canadian English speakers (n = 50) read all 10 IReST, half with normal/corrected-to-normal vision and half with reduced visual acuity, and were asked reading comprehension questions. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between Canadian sample and the published IReST values (in all cases, P > .05; mean difference [Mdiff] = -5.30 to +11.43; Cohen d = -0.15 to +0.27; Bayes factors = 0.41, 0.09). Assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions on the IReST significantly reduced reading speeds in the normal vision condition (Mdiff = 25.3; 95% confidence interval, -16.7 to -34.1) and in the simulated impairment condition (Mdiff = 59.3; 95% confidence interval, -47.7 to -71). CONCLUSIONS: The IReST is a valid measure that can be used to assess reading speed in a Canadian English-speaking sample. If researchers/clinicians wish to assess both reading speed and comprehension, using multiple-choice reading comprehension questions, then the values provided by the IReST will likely underestimate an individual's true reading speed in individuals with normal/corrected-to-normal vision or reduced visual acuity.

Effectiveness of the Apple iPad as a Spot-reading Magnifier.

SIGNIFICANCE: There are no data available comparing the iPad as a portable magnification device with a portable video magnifier. Our study supports the use and integration of mainstream tablet computers into vision rehabilitation to overcome potential barriers to device uptake due to the stigma attached to traditional devices. PURPOSE: Portable personal tablet computers have taken on an important role as assistive devices for individuals with visual impairment; however, their use is rarely supported by independent data. Our study aims to contribute to evidence-based practice by comparing a tablet computer with a portable video magnifier in their use as spot-reading devices. METHODS: We compared the Optelec Compact 5 HD portable video magnifier (Optelec, Longueuil, Canada) and the Apple iPad Air tablet computer (Apple Inc, Cupertino, CA) using the SuperVision+ Magnifier app by asking 60 adults with low vision (age range, 19 to 97 years; mean visual acuity, 20/136) to spot read information on a bill, a medication box, and a food label. Their ability to complete each task was timed; they completed the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology questionnaire and indicated their preferred device. RESULTS: Performance speed indicated that easier tasks were completed faster; however, there were no statistically significant differences in performance between the two device conditions. The highest satisfaction scores for both devices were identical: dimensions, ease of use, and effectiveness. Preference between the two devices was split at 25 for iPad, 33 for the portable closed-circuit television, and 2 for undecided. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that performance speed on our spot-reading tasks was comparable across the two devices. In addition, subjective judgment of the device features and personal preferences lead us to conclude that both the iPad and the portable magnifier may have certain equivalence in their functionality, depending on the user and the task for which they are used.