Advertisement

Effects of wearing yellow spectacles on visual skills, reading speed, and visual symptoms in children with reading difficulties

  • Catalina Palomo-ÁlvarezEmail author
  • María C. Puell
Pediatrics

Abstract

Background

Possible beneficial effects of yellow-tinted spectacle lenses on binocular vision, accommodation, oculomotor scanning, reading speed and visual symptoms were assessed in children with reading difficulties.

Methods

A longitudinal prospective study was performed in 82 non-dyslexic children with reading difficulties in grades 3–6 (aged 9–11 years) from 11 elementary schools in Madrid (Spain). The children were randomly assigned to two groups: a treatment (n = 46) and a without-treatment group (n = 36). Children in the treatment group wore yellow spectacle lenses with best correction if necessary over 3 months (in school and at home). The tests were first undertaken without the yellow filter. With best spectacle correction in each subject, measurements were made of: distance and near horizontal heterophoria, distance and near horizontal fusional vergence ranges, the accommodative convergence/accommodation (AC/A) ratio, near point of convergence (NPC), stereoacuity, negative relative accommodation (NRA) and positive relative accommodation (PRA), monocular accommodative amplitude (MAA), binocular accommodative facility (BAF), oculomotor scanning, and reading speed (words per minute). The Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS) questionnaire was completed by all children. After the 3-month period, measurements were repeated with the yellow lenses (treatment group) or without the yellow lenses (without-treatment group) but with refractive correction if needed.

Results

Over the 3 months, the two groups showed similar mean changes in the variables used to assess binocular vision, accommodation, oculomotor scanning, and reading speed. However, mean relative changes in convergence insufficiency symptoms differed significantly between the groups (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

No effects of wearing yellow spectacles emerged on binocular vision, accommodation, oculomotor scanning, and reading speed in children with reading difficulties. The yellow filter had no effect even in children with low MAA and BAF. The reduction in visual symptoms observed in children with reading difficulties using the yellow filters was clinically insignificant.

Keywords

Poor reader school-age children Yellow lenses Binocular vision Accommodation Oculomotor scanning Reading speed Visual symptoms 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest

References

  1. 1.
    Good PA, Taylor RH, Mortimer MJ (1991) The use of tinted glasses in childhood migraine. Headache 31:533–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Irlen H (1991) Reading by the colors: overcoming dyslexia and other reading disabilities by the Irlen method. Avery, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilkins A (1994) Overlays for clasroom and optometric use. Ophthalmic Physiol Optic 14:97–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blaskey P, Scheiman M, Parisi M, Ciner E, Gallaway M, Selznick R (1990) The effectiveness of Irlen filters for improving reading performance: a pilot study. J Learn Disabil 23:604–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ciuffreda KJ, Scheiman M, Ong E, Rosenfield M, Solan H (1997) Irlen lenses do not improve accommodative accuracy at near. Optom Vis Sci 74:298–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scott L, McWhinnie H, Taylor L, Stevenson N, Irons P, Lewis E, Evans M, Evans B, Wilkins A (2002) Coloured overlays in schools: orthoptic and optometric findings. Ophthalmic Physiol Optic 22:156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Menacker SJ, Breton ME, Breton ML, Radcliffe JR, Gole GA (1993) Do tinted lenses improve the reading performance of dyslexic children? Arch Ophthalmol 111:213–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Northway N (2003) Predicting the continued use of overlays in school children—a comparison of the Developmental Eye Movement test and the rate of reading test. Ophthal Physiol Opt 23:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cotton MM, Evans K (1990) An evaluation of the Irlen lenses as a treatment for specific reading disorders. Aust J Psychol 42:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Handler SM, Fierson WM, Section on Ophthalmology, Council on Children With Disabilities, American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, American Association of Certified Orthoptists (2011) Joint technical report—learning disabilities, dyslexia, and vision. Pediatrics 127(3):e818–e856. doi  2010.1542/peds.2010-3670 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ritchie SJ, Della Sala S, McIntosh RD (2011) Irlen colored overlays do not alleviate reading difficulties. Pediatrics 128:E932–E938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ritchie SJ, Della Sala S, McIntosh RD (2012) Irlen colored filters in the classroom: a 1-year follow-up. Mind Brain Educ 6:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borsting E, Rouse MW, Deland PN, Hovett S, Kimura D, Park M, Stephens B (2003) Association of symptoms and convergence and accommodative insufficiency in school-age children. Optometry 74:25–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rouse M, Hyman L, Hussein M (1998) Frequency of convergence insuficiency in optometry clinic settings. Optom Vis Sci 75:88–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scheiman M, Blaskey P, Ciner E, Gallaway M, Parisi M, Pollack K, Selznick R (1990) Vision characteristics of individuals identified as Irlen Filters candidates. J Am Optom Assoc 61:600–604PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sterner B, Abrahamsson M, Sjöström A (1999) Accommodative facility training with a long-term follow-up in a sample of school-aged children showing accommodative dysfunction. Coc Ophthalmol 99:93–101Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sterner B, Gellerstedt M, Sjöström A (2006) Accommodation and the relationship to subjective symptoms with near work for young school children. Ophthalmic Physiol Optic 26:148–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilkins A, Neary C (1991) Some visual, optometric and perceptual effects of coloured glasses. Ophthalmic Physiol Optic 11:163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Palomo-Alvarez C, Puell MC (2010) Binocular function in school children with reading difficulties. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248:885–892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Palomo-Álvarez C, Puell MC (2008) Accommodative function in school children with reading difficulties. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 246:1769–1774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Palomo-Álvarez C, Puell MC (2009) Relationship between oculomotor scanning determined by the DEM test and a contextual reading test in schoolchildren with reading difficulties. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 247(9):1243–1249. doi: 10.1007/s00417-009-1076-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ray NJ, Fowler S, Stein JF (2005) Yellow filters can improve magnocellular function: motion sensitivity, convergence, accommodation, and reading. Ann NY Acad Sci 1039:283–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Solman RT, Dain SJ, Lim HS, May JG (1995) Reading-related wavelength and spatial frequency effects in visual spatial location. Ophthalmic Physiol Optic 15:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Solan HA, Ficarra A, Brannan JR, Rucker F (1998) Eye movement efficiency in normal and reading disabled elementary school children: effects of varying luminance and wavelength. J Am Optom Assoc 69:455–464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bouldoukian J, Wilkins A, Evans B (2002) Randomised controlled trial of the effect of coloured overlays on the rate of reading of people with specific learning difficulties. Ophthalmic Physiol Optic 22:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Iovino I, Fletcher JM, Breitmeyer BG, Foorman BR (1998) Colored overlays for visual perceptual deficits in children with reading disability and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: are they differentially effective? J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 20:791–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Connor P, Sofo F, Kendall L, Olsen G (1990) Reading disabilities and the effects of colored filters. J Learn Disabil 23:597–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Simmers AJ, Gray LS, Wilkins AJ (2001) The influence of tinted lenses upon ocular accommodation. Vis Res 41:1229–1238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leat J, North R, Bryson H (1990) Do long wavelength pass filters improve low vision performance? Ophthalmic Physiol Optic 10:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kvansakul J, Rodriguez-Carmona M, Edgar D, Barker F, Kópcke W, Schalch W, Barbur J (2006) Supplementation with the carotenoids luteinor zeaxanthin improves human visual performance. Ophthal Physiol Optic 26:362–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zigman S (1992) Light filters to improve vision. Optom Vis Sci 69:325–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reading V, Weale R (1974) Macular pigment and chromatic aberration. J Opt Soc Am 64:231–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sivak J, Bobier W (1978) Effect a yellow ocular filter on chromatic aberration: the fish eye as an example. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 55:813–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kelly S (1990) Effect of yellow-tinted lenses on brightness. Opt Soc Am 7:1905–1911Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rabin J, Wiley R (1996) Differences in apparent contrast in yellow and white light. Ophthalmic Physiol Optic 16:68–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stein J (2003) Visual motion sensitivity and reading. Neuropsychologia 41:1785–1793PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lovegrove W, Heddle M, Slaghius W (1980) Reading disabilitiy: spatial frequency deficits in visual information store. Neuropsychologia 18:111–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brannan J, Williams M (1988) The effects of age and reading ability on flicker threshold. Optom Vis Sci 3:137–142Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Livingstone M, Rosen G, Drislane F, Galaburda A (1991) Physiological and anatomical evidence for a magnocellular defect in developmental dyslexia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 88:7943–7947PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stein J, Walsh V (1997) To see but not to read; the magnocellular theory of dyslexia. Trends Neurosci 20:147–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Skottun B (2000) On the conflicting support for the magnocellular-deficit theory of dyslexia. Trends Cognit Sci 4:211–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Daum KM (1991) Vergence amplitude. In: Skridge J, Amos J, Bartlett JD (eds) Clinical procedures in optometry. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, pp 91–98Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    O’Shea W, Ciuffreda K, Fisher S, Tannen B, Super P (1988) Relation between distance heterophoria and tonic vergence. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 65:787–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Saladin J, Sheedy J (1978) Phorometry and stereopsis. In: Benjamin WJ (ed) Borish’s clinical refraction. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp. 724–773Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Daum KM, Rutstein RP, Houston G 4th, Clore KA, Corliss DA (1989) Evaluation of a new criterion of binocularity. Optom Vis Sci 66:218–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jimenez R, Perez MA, Garcia JA, Gonzalez MD (2004) Statistical normal values of visual parameters that characterize binocular function in children. Ophthalmic Physiol Optic 24:528–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Scheiman M, Rouse M (1994) Optometric management of learning-related vision problems. Mosby-Year Book, Inc., St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kulp M, Schmidt P (2002) A pilot study. Depth perception and near stereoacuity: is it related to academic performance in young children? Binocul Vis Strabismus Q 17:129–134Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    London R (1991) Near point of convergence. In: Skridge J, Amos J, Bartlett JD (eds) Clinical procedures in optometry. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, pp 66–71Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Scheiman M, Wick B (2002) Clinical management of binocular vision: heterophoric, accommodative, and eye movement disorders, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Daum KM (1983) Accommodative dysfunction. Documenta Ophthalmologica. Adv Ophthalmol 55:177–198Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hokoda S (1985) General binocular dysfunctions in an urban optometry clinic. J Am Optom Assoc 56:560–562PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rouse M, Borsting E, Hyman L, Hussein M, Cotter S, Flynn M, Scheiman M, Gallaway M, De Land PN (1999) Frequency of convergence insufficiency among fifth and sixth graders. Optom Vis Sci 76:643–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lara F, Cacho P, Garcia A, Megias R (2001) General binocular disorders: prevalence in a clinic population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 21Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zellers JA, Alpert TL, Rouse MW (1984) A review of the literature and a normative study of accommodative facility. J Am Optom Assoc 55:31–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hennessey D, Iosue RA, Rouse MW (1984) Relation of symptoms to accommodative infacility of school-aged children. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 61:177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Garzia R, Richman J, Nicholson S, Gaines C (1990) A new visual verbal saccade test. The Developmental Eye Movement test (DEM). J Am Optom Assoc 61:124–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Cuetos F, Rodriguez B, Ruano E (2000) Evaluación de los procesos lectores (PROLEC), Madrid.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ramos J, Cuetos F (1999) Evaluación de los procesos lectores (PROLEC-SE), MadridGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Borsting E, Rouse M, Mitchell GL, Scheiman M, Cotter S, Cooper J, Kulp M, London R, CITT (2003) Validity and reliability of the revised convergence insufficiency symptom survey in children aged 9 to 18 years. Optom Vis Sci 80:832–838PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Clisby C, Fowlwer M, Hebb G, Walters J, Southcott P, Stein J (2000) Outcome of treatment of visual problems in children with reading difficulties. Professional Association of Teachers in Special Situations (PATOSS) bulletin, pp. 9–14Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wilkins A, Lewis E (1999) Coloured overlays text and texture. Perception 28:641–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of OptometryComplutense UniversityMadridSpain
  2. 2.E.U.O. Universidad ComplutenseMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations