Benefits of Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) Over Scrolled Text Vary with Letter Size

We previously reported that low vision readers do not benefit from a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) display relative to a scroll display. Each reader in those studies was presented with only one letter size, and it was the same for both displays. In the current study, we systematically varied the size of the letters and compared reading rates from the 2 displays for letters that were 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 times each reader's acuity threshold. Using this paradigm, we found that subjects with normal vision (n = 12) read faster with RSVP for all text sizes. Low vision subjects (N = 20) showed no benefit of RSVP until the text was at least 8x their acuity threshold. As in our prior studies, there was a great deal of variability within the low vision group, and for a small number of subjects (25%), reading was faster from the scroll than from the RSVP display.

[1]  H. Bouma.  Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. , 1973, Vision research.

[2]  GORDON E. LEGGE,et al.  Psychophysics of Reading. VIII. The Minnesota Low- Vision Reading Test , 1989, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[3]  Gordon E. Legge,et al.  Psychophysics of reading—II. Low vision , 1985, Vision Research.

[4]  E Peli,et al.  Scrolled and rapid serial visual presentation texts are read at similar rates by the visually impaired. , 1995, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[5]  G C Woo,et al.  Effect of magnification and field of view on reading speed using a CCTV * , 1988, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[6]  E Peli,et al.  Visually impaired observers require a larger window than normally sighted observers to read from a scroll display. , 1996, Journal of the American Optometric Association.

[7]  S. Whittaker,et al.  Visual Requirements for Reading , 1993, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[8]  D. G. Vass,et al.  OSA Technical Digest Series , 1990 .

[9]  E Peli,et al.  The Role of Context in Reading with Central Field Loss , 1996, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[10]  M A Just,et al.  A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. , 1980, Psychological review.

[11]  Gary S. Rubin,et al.  Low vision reading with sequential word presentation , 1994, Vision Research.

[12]  E Peli,et al.  The necessary field of view to read with an optimal stand magnifier. , 1996, Journal of the American Optometric Association.

[13]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Eye Movements in Reading: Recent Developments , 1993 .

[14]  Gary S. Rubin,et al.  Reading without saccadic eye movements , 1992, Vision Research.

[15]  G. Legge,et al.  Psychophysics of reading—I. Normal vision , 1985, Vision Research.

[16]  G E Legge,et al.  Glenn A. Fry Award Lecture 1990: three perspectives on low vision reading. , 1991, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.