Extending the MNREAD sentence corpus: Computer-generated sentences for measuring visual performance in reading.

The MNREAD chart consists of standardized sentences printed at 19 sizes in 0.1 logMAR steps. There are 95 sentences distributed across the five English versions of the chart. However, there is a demand for a much larger number of sentences: for clinical research requiring repeated measures, and for new vision tests that use multiple trials at each print size. This paper describes a new sentence generator that has produced over nine million sentences that fit the MNREAD constraints, and demonstrates that reading performance with these new sentences is comparable to that obtained with the original MNREAD sentences. We measured reading performance with the original MNREAD sentences, two sets of our new sentences, and sentences with shuffled word order. Reading-speed versus print-size curves were obtained for each sentence set from 14 readers with normal vision at two levels of blur (intended to simulate acuity loss in low vision) and with unblurred text. We found no significant differences between the new and original sentences in reading acuity and critical print size across all levels of blur. Maximum reading speed was 7% slower with the new sentences than with the original sentences. Shuffled sentences yielded slower maximum reading speeds and larger reading acuities than the other sentences. Overall, measures of reading performance with the new sentences are similar to those obtained with the original MNREAD sentences. Our sentence generator substantially expands the reading materials for clinical research on reading vision using the MNREAD test, and opens up new possibilities for measuring how text parameters affect reading.

Psychophysics of reading. XX. Linking letter recognition to reading speed in central and peripheral vision.

Our goal is to link spatial and temporal properties of letter recognition to reading speed for text viewed centrally or in peripheral vision. We propose that the size of the visual span - the number of letters recognizable in a glance - imposes a fundamental limit on reading speed, and that shrinkage of the visual span in peripheral vision accounts for slower peripheral reading. In Experiment 1, we estimated the size of the visual span in the lower visual field by measuring RSVP (rapid serial visual presentation) reading times as a function of word length. The size of the visual span decreased from at least 10 letters in central vision to 1.7 letters at 15 degrees eccentricity, in good agreement with the corresponding reduction of reading speed measured by Chung and coworkers (Chung, S. T. L., Mansfield, J. S., & Legge, G. E. (1998). Psychophysics of reading. XVIII. The effect of print size on reading speed in normal peripheral vision. Vision Research, 38, 2949-2962). In Exp. 2, we measured letter recognition for trigrams (random strings of three letters) as a function of their position on horizontal lines passing through fixation (central vision) or displaced downward into the lower visual field (5, 10 and 20 degrees ). We also varied trigram presentation time. We used these data to construct visual-span profiles of letter accuracy versus letter position. These profiles were used as input to a parameter-free model whose output was RSVP reading speed. A version of this model containing a simple lexical-matching rule accounted for RSVP reading speed in central vision. Failure of this version of the model in peripheral vision indicated that people rely more on lexical inference to support peripheral reading. We conclude that spatiotemporal characteristics of the visual span limit RSVP reading speed in central vision, and that shrinkage of the visual span results in slower reading in peripheral vision.

The effect of contrast on reading speed in dyslexia.

Contrast coding has been reported to differ between dyslexic and normal readers. Dyslexic readers require higher levels of contrast to detect sinewave gratings for certain spatiotemporal conditions, and dyslexic readers show faster visual search at low contrast. We investigated whether these differences in early contrast coding generalize to reading performance by measuring reading speed as a function of text contrast for dyslexic children and adults and for age-matched controls. Contrast affected reading performance of dyslexic and normal readers similarly. For both groups, reading speed was relatively constant between 100 and 2% contrast, and decreased rapidly below 2% contrast. This pattern of results held true for both children and adults, for text with and without sentence context, across a range of character sizes, and for reading aloud and reading silently. We conclude that earlier findings of group differences in contrast effects on grating detection or visual search tasks do not generalize to reading.

Psychophysics of reading. XVIII. The effect of print size on reading speed in normal peripheral vision.

Reading in peripheral vision is slow and requires large print, posing substantial difficulty for patients with central scotomata. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of print size on reading speed at different eccentricities in normal peripheral vision. We hypothesized that reading speeds should remain invariant with eccentricity, as long as the print is appropriately scaled in size--the scaling hypothesis. The scaling hypothesis predicts that log-log plots of reading speed versus print size exhibit the same shape at all eccentricities, but shift along the print-size axis. Six normal observers read aloud single sentences (approximately 11 words in length) presented on a computer monitor, one word at a time, using rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). We measured reading speeds (based on RSVP exposure durations yielding 80% correct) for eight print sizes at each of six retinal eccentricities, from 0 (foveal) to 20 deg in the inferior visual field. Consistent with the scaling hypothesis, plots of reading speed versus print size had the same shape at different eccentricities: reading speed increased with print size, up to a critical print size and was then constant at a maximum reading speed for larger print sizes. Also consistent with the scaling hypothesis, the plots shifted horizontally such that average values of the critical print size increased from 0.16 deg (fovea) to 2.22 deg (20 deg peripheral). Inconsistent with the scaling hypothesis, the plots also exhibited vertical shifts so that average values of the maximum reading speed decreased from 807 w.p.m. (fovea) to 135 w.p.m. (20 deg peripheral). Because the maximum reading speed is not invariant with eccentricity even when the print size was scaled, we reject the scaling hypothesis and conclude that print size is not the only factor limiting maximum reading speed in normal peripheral vision.

Motion parallax: effects of blur, contrast, and field size in normal and low vision.

Can people with different forms of low vision use motion parallax to improve depth judgments? We used a staircase method to compare depth thresholds using motion parallax and static viewing. We tested eighteen normal-vision subjects with a range of simulated deficits in acuity, contrast sensitivity, and simulated peripheral-field loss, and ten low-vision subjects with a wide range of acuity, contrast sensitivity, and field loss. Subjects viewed three vertical cylinders monocularly and indicated which one was at a different depth from the other two. For motion-parallax trials, observers moved their heads (in a viewing assembly on rollers) from side to side over a range of 6-12 cm. For static trials, the viewing assembly was fixed in place. Normal-vision subjects' depth thresholds with motion parallax were significantly smaller than those with static viewing by an average factor of 1.95 (p < 0.05) across all levels of acuity and contrast. For low-vision observers, the depth thresholds exhibited large individual differences; however, the motion-parallax thresholds were smaller than the static thresholds by an average factor of 2.05 (p < 0.01). These findings indicate that motion parallax can provide useful depth information for people with low vision.

Psychophysics of reading. XV: Font effects in normal and low vision.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the effect of font on low-vision reading. In this study, the authors measured the influence of font in reading with normal and low vision. METHODS: Reading acuity, maximum reading speed, and critical print size (the smallest print that can be read with maximum speed) were measured in 50 normal subjects and 42 subjects with low vision. Data were collected using versions of the MNREAD Acuity Chart printed with the Times (proportionally spaced) and Courier (fixed-width) fonts. RESULTS: Reading acuity scores obtained with Courier were better than those obtained with Times for both normal (mean difference, 0.05 logMAR, P < 0.001) and subjects with low vision (0.09 logMAR, P < 0.001). Similarly, critical print sizes measured with Courier were smaller than those measured with Times (mean difference, 0.06 logMAR for normal subjects and subjects with low vision, P < 0.002). Maximum reading speeds for normal subjects were 5% faster with Times than with Courier (P < 0.001), but for subjects with low vision, maximum reading speeds were 10% slower with Times than with Courier (P < 0.05). For print smaller than the critical print size, the reading speeds of normal subjects and subjects with low vision were substantially slower (by as much as 50%) for Times than for Courier. CONCLUSIONS: There are small, but significant, advantages of Courier over Times in reading acuity, critical print size, and reading speed for subjects with low vision. For normal subjects, the differences are slighter, with an advantage in reading speed for Times. However, for print sizes close to the acuity limit, choice of font could make a significant difference in both normal and low-vision reading performance.

The binocular computation of visual direction.

How is a single visual direction assigned to a binocular feature for which the left and right eyes are signaling different directions? According to geometrical principles, binocular visual direction is the average of the visual directions measured from the left and right eyes. Contrary to this prediction, we have found that the relative visual direction between two Gabor targets presented at different stereoscopic depths could be manipulated by varying the contrast ratio between the left and right images. This finding is consistent with a new model in which the relative alignment of depth features is determined from a maximum-likelihood combination of the direction signals from the left and right eyes. In a second experiment we provide support for this model, showing that the magnitude of the contrast-dependent bias in visual direction is predicted by the uncertainty for spatial localization in the left and right images. Lastly we show that visual direction and stereopsis have different dependencies on interocular contrast differences, suggesting that the computation of stereo depth and visual direction are mediated via different mechanisms.

An orientation-tuned component in the contrast masking of stereopsis.

A masking paradigm was used to evaluate the orientation selectivity of the mechanisms mediating human stereopsis. Two experienced and eleven naive observers viewed stereograms, spatially filtered to contain contrast energy with Gaussian passbands in spatial frequency and orientation. Using forced-choice procedures we measured contrast thresholds for stereopsis in the presence of oriented masking patterns. Our results show that the masking of stereopsis consists of two components: one is orientation dependent, the other is non-oriented and has greatest magnitude at lower spatial frequencies. Contrary to an earlier study, these results imply that stereopsis mechanisms may have similar orientation tuning to mechanisms mediating contrast detection.