Spatial frequency sensitivity differences between adults of good and poor reading ability

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 46, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 2219-2224

  Patching, Geoffrey R ^a   Jordan, Timothy R ^b  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DYSLEXIA; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; SPATIAL FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL ACUITY; ADOLESCENT; ALEXIA; DEPTH PERCEPTION; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DYSLEXIA, ACQUIRED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; READING; SPACE PERCEPTION; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 22144466243     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.03-1247     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Campbell FW, Robson JG. Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings. J Physiol. 1968;197:551-556.
2. Ginsburg AP. Spatial filtering and visual form perception. In: Boff KR, Kaufman L, Thomas JP, eds. Handbook of Human Perception and Human Performance. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1986;1-41.
3. Graham N. Visual Pattern Analysers. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989.
4. Borsting E, Ridder WH III, Dudeck K, Relief C, Matsui L, Motoyama J. The presence of a magnocellular defect depends on the type of dyslexia. Vision Res. 1996;36:1047-1053.
5. Cornelissen PL. Fixation, contrast sensitivity and children's reading. In: Wright SF, Groner R, eds. Facets of Dyslexia and Its Remediation. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1993:139-162.
6. Demb JB, Boynton GM, Best M, Heeger DJ. Psychological evidence for a magnocellular pathway deficit in dyslexia. Vision Res. 1998;38:1555-1559.
7. Evans BW, Drasdo N, Richards IL. Linking the sensory and visual motor visual correlates of dyslexia. In: Wright SF, Groner R, eds. Facets of Dyslexia and Its Remediation. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1993:179-191.
8. Evans BW, Drasdo N, Richards IL. An investigation of some sensory and refractive visual factors in dyslexia. Vision Res. 1996;34:1913-1926.
9. Gross-Glenn K, Skottun BC, Glenn W, et al. Contrast sensitivity in dyslexia. Vis Neurosci. 1995;12:153-163.
10. Lovegrove WJ, Bowling A, Badcock D, Blackwood M. Specific reading disability: differences in contrast sensitivity as a function of spatial frequency. Science. 1980;210:439-440.
11. Lovegrove WJ, Martin F, Bowling A, Blackwood M, Badcock D, Paxton S. Contrast sensitivity functions and specific reading disability. Neuropsychologia. 1982;20:309-315.
12. Martin A, Cornelissen P, Fowler S, Stein J. Contrast sensitivity, ocular dominance and specific reading disability. Clin Vis Sci. 1993;8:345-353.
13. Martin A, Lovegrove W. The effects of field size and luminance on contrast sensitivity differences between specifically disabled and normal children. Neuropsychologia. 1984;22:73-77.
14. Martin A, Lovegrove W. Uniform-field flicker masking in control and specifically-disabled readers. Perception. 1988;17:203-214.
15. Skottun BC. The magnocellular deficit theory of dyslexia: the evidence from contrast sensitivity. Vision Res. 2000;40:111-127.
16. Carey S, Low S, Hansbro J. Adult Literacy in Britain. London: Office for National Statistics; 1997.
17. Jones S. Reading, but Not Reading Well: Reading Skills at Level 3: a Report from the Survey of Literacy Skills Used in Daily Activities. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: The National Literacy Secretariat, Canada; 1993.
18. Brown B. Reading performance in low vision patients: relation to contrast and contrast sensitivity. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1981;58:218-226.
19. Jackson MD, McClelland JL. Processing determinants of reading speed. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1979;108:151-181.
20. Leat SJ, Munger R. A new application of band-pass fast Fourier transforms to the study of reading performance. Tech Digest Ser Opt Soc Am. 1994;2:250-253.
21. Legge GE, Mansfield SJ, Chung STL. Psychophysics of reading. XX. Linking letter recognition to reading speed in central and peripheral vision. Vision Res. 2001;41:725-743.
22. Legge GE, Pelli DG, Rubin GS, Schleske MM. Psychophysics of reading. I. Normal vision. Vision Res. 1985;25:239-252.
23. Legge GE, Rubin GS, Pelli DG, Schleske MM. Psychophysics of reading II. Low vision. Vision Res. 1985;25:253-266.
24. Legge GE, Rubin GS, Luebker A. Psychophysics of reading: V. The role of contrast in normal vision. Vision Res. 1987;27:1165-1177.
25. O'Brien B, Mansfield SJ, Legge GE. The effect of contrast on reading speed in dyslexia. Vision Res. 2000;40:1921-1935.
26. Rubin GS, Legge GE. Psychophysics of reading: VI. The role of contrast in low vision. Vision Res. 1989;29:79-91.
27. Whittaker SG, Lovie-Kitchin J. Visual requirements for reading. Optom Vis Sci. 1993;70:54-65.
28. Carver RP. Reading Rate: A Review of Research and Theory. San Diego: Academic Press; 1990.
29. Watson AB, Pelli DG. QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychophysical procedure. Percept Psychophys. 1983;47:87-91.
30. King-Smith PE, Grigsby SS, Vingrys AJ, Benes SC, Supowit AA. Efficient and unbiased modifications of the QUEST threshold method: theory, simulations, experimental evaluation and practical implementation. Vision Res. 1994;34:885-912.
31. Bailey IL, Lovie JE. New design principles for visual acuity charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1976;53:740-745.
32. Kitchin JE, Bailey I. Task complexity and visual acuity in senile macular degeneration. Aust J Optom. 1981;64:235-242.
33. Pelli DG, Farrell B. Psychophysical methods. In: Bass M, Van Stryland EW, Williams DR, Wolfe WL, eds. Handbook of Optics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994:1-13.
34. Brainard DH. The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat Vis. 1997;10:433-436.
35. Pelli DG. The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis. 1997;10:437-442.
36. Bryson B. Notes from a Small Island. London: Black Swan; 1995.
37. Jordan TR, Thomas SM, Patching GR. Assessing the importance of letter pairs in reading: parafoveal processing is not the only view. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003;29:900-903.
38. Jordan TR, Thomas SM, Patching GR, Scott-Brown KC. Assessing the importance of letter pairs in initial, exterior, and interior positions in reading. J Exp Psychol: Learn Mem Cogn. 2003;29:883-893.
39. Lovegrove W, Slaghuis W, Bowling A, Nelson P, Greeves E. Spatial frequency processing and the prediction of reading ability: a preliminary investigation. Percept Psychophys. 1986;40:440-444.
40. Stuart GW, McAnally KI, Castles A. Can contrast sensitivity functions in dyslexia be explained by inattention rather than a magnocellular deficit? Vision Res. 2001;41:3205-3211.
41. Allen PA, Emerson PL. Holism revisited: evidence for parallel independent word-level and letter-level processors during word recognition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perf. 1991;17:489-511.
42. Jordan TR. Presenting words without interior letters: superiority over single letters and influence of postmask boundaries. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perf. 1990;16:893-909.
43. Jordan TR. Perceiving exterior letters of words: differential influences of letter-fragment and non-letter-fragment masks. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perf. 1995;21:512-530.
44. Jordan TR, Bevan KM. Position-specific masking and the word-letter phenomenon: re-examining the evidence from the Reicher-Wheeler paradigm. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perf. 1996;22:1416-1433.
45. Jordan TR, de Bruijn O. Word superiority over isolated letters: the neglected role of flanking mask-contours. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perf. 1993;19:549-563.
46. Allen PA, Wallace B, Weber TA. Influence of case type, word frequency and exposure duration on visual word recognition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perf. 1995;21:914-934.
47. Chase CH. A visual deficit model of developmental dyslexia. In: Chase CH, Rosen GD, Sherman GF, eds. Developmental Dyslexia: Neural, Cognitive, and Genetic Mechanisms. Timonium, MD: York Press; 1996:127-156.
48. Healy AF, Oliver WL, McNamara TP. Detecting letters in continuous text: effects of display size. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perf. 1987;13:279-290.
49. Rudnicky AI, Kolers PA. Size and case of type as stimuli in reading. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perf. 1984;10:231-249.