Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling of MNREAD data

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 828-835

  Cheung, Sing Hang ^a,b   Kallie, Christopher S ^b   Legge, Gordon E ^b   Cheong, Allen M Y ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; NONLINEAR MIXED EFFECTS MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; RETINA MACULA AGE RELATED DEGENERATION; STATISTICAL MODEL; LANGUAGE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PHYSIOLOGY; VISION TEST; VISUAL ACUITY;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; READING; VISION TESTS; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 40649114781     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.07-0555     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Cudeck R. Mixed-effects models in the study of individual differences with repeated measures data. Multivar Behav Res. 1996; 31:371-403.
2. Cudeck R, Harring JR. Analysis of nonlinear patterns of change with random coefficient models. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007; 58:615-637.
3. Audren F, Tod, M, Massin P, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of the effect of triamcinolone acetonide on central macular thickness in patients with diabetic macular edema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:3435-3441.
4. Tomita G, Araie M, Kitazawa Y, Tsukahara S. A three-year prospective, randomized and open comparison between latanoprost and timolol in Japanese normal-tension glaucoma patients. Eye. 2004; 18:84-989.
5. Lindstrom MJ, Bates DM. Nonlinear mixed-effects models for repeated measures data. Biometrics. 1990; 46:673-687.
6. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Model building for nonlinear mixed-effects models. Technical Report 91. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin; 1995.
7. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus. New York: Springer; 2000.
8. Elliott DB, Trukolo-Ilic M, Strong G, Pace R, Plotkin A, Bevers P. Demographic characteristics of the vision-disabled elderly. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997; 38:2566-2575.
9. Legge GE, Ross JA, Isenberg LM, LaMay JM. Psychophysics of reading, XII: clinical predictors of low-vision reading speed. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992; 33:677-687.
10. Raasch TW, Rubin GS. Reading with low vision. J Am Optom Assoc. 1993;64: 15-18.
11. Lovie-Kitchin JE, Bevan JD, Hein B. Reading performance in children with low vision. Clin Exp Optom. 2001; 84:148-154.
12. Virgili G, Cordaro C, Bigoni A, Crovato S, Cecchini P, Menchini U. Reading acuity in children: evaluation and reliability using MNREAD charts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:3349-3354.
13. Cheong AMY, Lovie-Kitchin JE, Bowers AR, Brown B. Short-term in-office practice improves reading performance with stand magnifiers for people with AMD. Optom Vis Sci. 2005; 82:114-127.
14. Smith HJ, Dickinson CM, Cacho I, Reeves BC, Harper RA. A randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of prism spectacles for patients with age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005; 123:1042-1050.
15. Watson GR, Schuchard RA, De l'Aune WR, Watkins E. Effects of preferred retinal locus placement on text navigation and development of advantages trained retinal locus. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006; 43:761-770.
16. Legge GE, Ross JA, Luebker A, LaMay JM. Psychophysics of reading, VIII: the Minnesota low-vision reading test. Optom Vis Sci. 1989; 66:843-853.
17. Mansfield JS, Ahn SJ, Legge GE, Luebker A. A new reading-acuity chart for normal and low vision. In: Ophthalmic and Visual Optics/Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System, OSA Technical Digest Series. Vol 3. Washington DC: Optical Society of America; 1993:232-235.
18. Ahn SJ, Legge GE, Luebker A. Printed cards for measuring low-vision reading speed. Vision Res. 1995; 35:1939-1944.
19. Mansfield JS, Legge GE, Bane MC. Psychophysics of reading, XV: font effects in normal and low vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996; 37:1492-1501.
20. Mansfield JS, Legge GE. The MNREAD acuity chart. In: Psychophysics of Reading in Normal and Low Vision. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007:167-191.
21. Mansfield JS, Legge GE. Print size definitions and conversions. In: Psychophysics of Reading in Normal and Low Vision. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007:193-197.
22. Legge GE, Pelli DG, Rubin GS, Schleske MM. Psychophysics of reading, I: normal vision. Vision Res. 1985; 25:239-252.
23. Legge GE, Cheung S-H, Yu D, Chung STL, Lee H-W, Owens DP. The case for the visual span as a sensory bottleneck in reading. J Vis. 2007;7:1-15.
24. Legge GE. Visual mechanisms in reading. In: Psychophysics of Reading in Normal and Low Vision. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007:43-105.
25. Virgili G, Pierrottet C, Parmeggiani F, et al. Reading performance in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: a study using the MNREAD charts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:3418-3424.
26. O'Brien BA, Mansfield JS, Legge GE. The effect of print size on reading speed in dyslexia. J Res Read. 2005; 28:332-349.
27. Latham K, Whitaker D. A comparison of word recognition and reading performance in foveal and peripheral vision. Vision Res. 1996; 36:2665-2674.
28. Subramanian A, Pardhan S. The repeatability of MNREAD acuity charts and variability at different test distances. Optom Vis Sci. 2006; 83:572-576.
29. Cheong AMY, Legge GE, Lawrence MG, Cheung S-H, Ruff MA. Relationship between slow visual processing and reading speed in people with macular degeneration. Vision Res. 2007; 47:2943-2955.
30. Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat. 1979; 7:1-26.
31. Efron B. Nonparametric estimates of standard error: the jackknife, the bootstrap and other methods. Biometrika. 1981; 68:589-599.
32. Efron B. Better bootstrap confidence intervals. J Am Stat Assoc. 1987; 82:171-185.
33. Cole RG. Visual acuity and predicted reading add. In: Rosenthal BP, Cole RG, eds. Functional Assessment ofLow Vision. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1996:27-39.
34. Dickinson C. Low Vision: Principles and Practice. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1998.
35. Whittaker SG, Lovie-Kitchin JE. Visual requirements for reading. Optom Vis Sci. 1993; 70:54- 65.
36. Cheong AMY, Lovie-Kitchin JE, Bowers AR. Determining magnification for reading with low vision. Clin Exp Optom. 2002; 85:229-237.
37. Chung STL, Jarvis SH, Cheung S-H. The effect of dioptric blur on reading performance. Vision Res. 2007; 47:1584-1594.
38. Henderson CR. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics. 1975; 31:423- 447.
39. Robinson GK. That BLUP is a good thing: the estimation of random effects. Stat Sci. 1991; 6:15-32.
40. Ihaka R, Gentleman R. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comp Graph Stat. 1996; 5:299-314.
41. Nelder JA, Mead R. A simplex method for function minimization. Computer J. 1965; 7:308-313.