Advertisement

Parafoveal vision impairments and their influence on reading performance and self-evaluated reading abilities

  • Carolin GallEmail author
  • Caroline Wagenbreth
  • Susann Sgorzaly
  • Gabriele H. Franke
  • Bernhard A. Sabel
Neuro-ophthalmology

Abstract

Background and purpose

Patients with homonymous hemianopic field defects (HFD) after postchiasmatic cerebral brain injuries often complain about impairments in daily life activities, particularly problems in reading, and show considerable reductions of vision-related quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to assess the relation of “objective” reading performance and self-reported “subjective” reading abilities; it was further investigated whether parafoveal HFD characteristics have an impact on both parameters.

Methods

In postchiasmatic-lesioned subjects with HFD (n = 43), “objective” reading performance was measured with Radner-Reading-Charts (reading speed, reading acuity). Vision-related QoL was assessed by the National-Eye-Institute-Visual-Function-Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). Four reading-relevant NEI-VFQ items that assessed “subjective” reading abilities were separately analyzed. Macular sparing measures were derived from campimetry (±16° vertical, ±21.5° horizontal); i.e., the vertical HFD border between ±2° and the proportion of intact parafoveal visual field within the “reading window”. Since macular sparing may be a perimetric artefact, eye movements during campimetry were recorded in 26 subjects.

Results

Mean reading speed of the total sample (90.72 ± 33.96 words per minute) was considerably reduced, as was the patients' vision-related QoL, which was revealed by diminished NEI-VFQ scores. Reading acuity was 0.12 ± 0.13 LogRAD (0.81 ± 0.26 according to the decimal system). There were significant but weak correlations between reading acuity and speed with all reading-relevant NEI-VFQ-items (r-range, reading acuity: −0.57 to −0.38, reading speed: 0.33 to 0.43) and 7/12 NEI-VFQ-subscales (r-range, reading acuity: −0.47 to −0.33, reading speed: 0.31 to 0.40). The intact parafoveal visual field correlated significantly with 2/4 reading-related NEI-VFQ-items and with 4/12 NEI-VFQ-subscales (r-range 0.31 to 0.52). Reading acuity and mean reading speed were both correlated with fixation accuracy during campimetry (r = −0.38 and 0.45). Correlations of spared areas between +2° to −2° and the relative and absolute defect HFD border with reading speed, but not reading acuity, tended to significance. Subjects deviated from the campimetric fixation mark in a SD-range of ±5.2° vertically and ±6.5° horizontally but eye movement ranges were not correlated with macular sparing measures.

Conclusions

Patients with HFD showed severely reduced reading speed, which was reflected in subjectively diminished reading performance, and reduced reading-related QoL parameters. Larger areas of functionally intact parafoveal vision were associated with better reading performance. Although eye movements occurred during campimetry, these did not seem to constitute an artificially enlarged area of parafoveal intact vision.

Keywords

Hemianopia Reading Visual field border Macular sparing Eye movements Quality of life 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Nicole Mäter and Sandra Heinrich (both Institute of Medical Psychology, Magdeburg, Germany) for their support in data-collection and data-handling as well as Jürgen Köhler, PhD for his support in statistical analyses (University of Applied Sciences, Magdeburg-Stendal, Section of Statistics, Magdeburg, Germany). The study was funded by the Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg.

References

  1. 1.
    Ciuffreda KJ (1994) Reading eye movements in subjects with oculomotor disturbances. In: Ygge J, Lennerstrand G (eds) Eye movements in reading. Alden Press, Oxford, pp 163–186Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G*Power3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioural and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Meth 39:175–191Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fine EM, Hazel CA, Petre KL, Rubin GS (1999) Are the benefits of sentence context different in central and peripheral vision? Optom Vis Sci 76:764–769CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Franke GH, Mähner N, Reimer J, Voigtländer-Fleiß A, Esser J (2003) Ein psychodiagnostischer Zugang zur Erfassung der Einbußen an gesundheitsbezogener Lebensqualität bei verringerter Sehkraft. Zeitschrift für Medizinische Psychologie 12:57–62Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gall C, Mueller I, Kaufmann C, Franke GH, Sabel BA (2008) Visual field defects after cerebral lesions from the subject's perspective: health- and vision-related quality of life assessed by SF- 36 and NEI-VFQ. Nervenarzt 79:185–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gall C, Mueller I, Gudlin J, Lindig A, Schlueter D, Jobke S, Franke GH, Sabel BA (2008) Vision- and health-related quality of life before and after vision restoration training in cerebrally damaged subjects. Restor Neurol Neurosci 26:1–13Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gall C, Lucklum J, Sabel BA, Franke GH (2009) Vision- and health-related quality of life in subjects with visual field loss after postchiasmatic lesions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:2765–2776Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gassel MM, Williams D (1963) Visual function in subjects with homonymous hemianopia. Part II. Oculomotor mechanisms. Brain 86:1–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kerkhoff G (1999) Restorative and compensatory therapy approaches in cerebral blindness: a review. Restor Neurol Neurosci 15:255–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Legge GE, Ahn SJ, Klitz TS, Luebker A (1997) Psychophysics of reading: XVI. The visual span in normal and low vision. Vis Res 37:1999–2010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Legge GE, Mansfield JS, Chung STL (2001) Psychophysics of reading: XX. Linking letter recognition to reading speed in central and peripheral vision. Vis Res 41:725–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mackworth NH, Kaplan IT, Metlay W (1964) Eye movements during vigilance. Percept Mot Skills 18:397–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Heys RD (2001) Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. NEI-VFQ Field Test Investigators. Arch Ophthalmol 119:1050–1058PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McConkie GW, Rayner K (1975) The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Percept Psychophys 17:578–586Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McConkie GW, Rayner K (1976) Asymmetry of the perceptual span in reading. Bull Psychonomic Soc 8:365–368Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McMahon TT, Hansen M, Viana M (1991) Fixation characteristics in macular disease. Relationship between saccadic frequency, sequencing and reading rate. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 32:567–574PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mueller I, Poggel DA, Kenkel S, Kasten E, Sabel BA (2003) Vision Restoration Therapy (VRT) after brain damage: subjective improvements of activities of activities of daily life and their relationship to visual field enlargements. Vis Impair Res 5:157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mueller I, Mast H, Sabel BA (2007) Recovery of visual field defects. A large clinical observational study using vision restoration therapy. Restor Neurol Neurosci 25(5–6):563–572PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Muller-Oehring EM, Kasten E, Poggel DA, Schulte T, Strasburger H, Sabel BA (2003) Neglect and hemianopia superimposed. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 25:1154–1168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Papageorgiou E, Hardiess G, Schaeffel F, Wiethoelter H, Karnath HO, Mallot H, Schoenfisch B, Schiefer U (2007) Assessment of vision-related quality of life in subjects with homonymous visual field defects. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245:1749–1758CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paramei GV, Sabel BA (2008) Contour- integration deficits on the intact side of the visual field in hemianopia subjects. Behav Brain Res 188:109–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Posner MI, Nissen MJ, Ogden WC (1978) Attended and unattended processing modes: the role of set for spatial location. In: Pick HL Jr, Saltzman E (eds) Modes of perceiving and processing information. Erlbaum, Hillsdale: NY, pp 137–157Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Radner W, Willinger U, Obermayer W, Mudrich C, Velikay-Parel M, Eisenwort B (1998) A new reading chart for simultaneous determination of reading vision and reading speed. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 213:174–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rayner K, Bertera JH (1979) Reading without a fovea. Science 206:468–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reinhard J, Trauzettel-Klosinski S (2003) Nasotemporal overlap of retinal ganglion cells in humans: a functional study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:1568–1572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ring L, Höfer S, Heuston F, Harris D, O’Boyle CA (2005) Response shift masks the treatment impact on patient reported outcomes (PROs): the example of individual quality of life in edentulous patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 3:55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sprangers MA, Schwartz CE (1999) Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 48:1507–1515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stifter E, König F, Lang T, Bauer P, Richter-Mueksch S, Velikay-Parel M, Radner W (2004) Reliability of a standardized reading chart system: variance component analysis, test-retest and inter-chart reliability. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 242:31–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Brendler K (1998) Eye movements in reading with hemianopic field defects: the significance of clinical parameters. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 236:91–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Reinhard J (1998) The vertical field border in hemianopia and its significance for fixation and reading. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:2177–2186PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilson B, Cockburn J, Halligan P (1987) Development of a behavioral test of visuospatial neglect. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 68:98–101Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zihl J (1989) Cerebral disturbances of elementary visual functions. In: Brown JW (ed) Neuropsychology of visual perceptions. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (NJ), pp 35–58Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zihl J (1995) Eye movement patterns in hemianopic dyslexia. Brain 118:891–912CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolin Gall
    • 1
    Email author
  • Caroline Wagenbreth
    • 1
  • Susann Sgorzaly
    • 1
  • Gabriele H. Franke
    • 2
  • Bernhard A. Sabel
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical Faculty, Institute of Medical PsychologyOtto-von-Guericke University of MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.AHW, Department of Rehabilitation PsychologyUniversity of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-StendalStendalGermany

Personalised recommendations