Recognition of jagged (pixelated) letters in the periphery

Previous studies found that for a group of mixed low vision observers, letter counting with smooth (anti-aliased) letters was better than with jagged (pixelated) letters on a CRT display (Bailey et al., Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1987;64:678-685). However,using a tachistoscopic presentation, Geiger and Lettvin (Perception 1998;27(Suppl.):15) found that for normally sighted observers, recognition of jagged letters was more accurate than that of smooth letters in the periphery. In the present study,we further investigated this effect using a high-resolution CRT display. Our results indicate that for normally sighted observers, recognition of jagged letters is not different from that of smooth letters in the periphery. This suggests that letter smoothing on a CRT display might not benefit reading of low vision patients with central field loss.

[1]  R. T. Wilkinson,et al.  Proof-reading: VDU and paper text compared for speed, accuracy and fatigue , 1987 .

[2]  Stephen E. Newstead,et al.  Proof-reading on VDUs , 1987 .

[3]  J. Orbach.  Differential recognition of Hebrew and English words in right and left visual fields as a function of cerebral dominance and reading habits , 1967 .

[4]  W. Heron,et al.  Perception as a function of retinal locus and attention. , 1957, The American journal of psychology.

[5]  J. Lettvin,et al.  Dyslexic children learn a new visual strategy for reading: a controlled experiment , 1994, Vision Research.

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

[7]  Gerard C. Jorna,et al.  Image Quality Determines Differences in Reading Performance and Perceived Image Quality with CRT and Hard-Copy Displays , 1991, Human factors.

[8]  V Barnes,et al.  Reading Is Slower from CRT Displays than from Paper: Attempts to Isolate a Single-Variable Explanation , 1987, Human factors.

[9]  H. BOUMA,et al.  Interaction Effects in Parafoveal Letter Recognition , 1970, Nature.

[10]  Harry L. Snyder,et al.  Image Quality Determines Differences in Reading Performance and Perceived Image Quality with CRT and Hard-Copy Displays , 1991 .

[11]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[12]  George Wolford,et al.  Retinal location and string position as important variables in visual information processing , 1974 .

[13]  M. Mishkin,et al.  Word recognition as a function of retinal locus. , 1952, Journal of experimental psychology.

[14]  J. Orbach,et al.  Retinal locus as a factor in the recognition of visually perceived words. , 1952, The American journal of psychology.

[15]  R. Thouless.  Experimental Psychology , 1939, Nature.

[16]  M. White,et al.  Laterality differences in perception: a review. , 1969, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  John D. Gould,et al.  Reading from CRT Displays Can Be as Fast as Reading from Paper , 1987 .

[18]  H. Bouma.  Visual recognition of isolated lower-case letters. , 1971, Vision research.

[19]  J. Lettvin,et al.  Task-determined strategies of visual process. , 1992, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[20]  J Y Lettvin,et al.  Enhancing the Perception of Form in Peripheral Vision , 1986, Perception.

[21]  I L Bailey,et al.  Readability of Computer Display Print Enlarged for Low Vision , 1987, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[22]  J Y Lettvin,et al.  Jagged letters are more easily recognised than smooth ones in the peripheral visual field , 1998 .