IOVS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2005;46:2219-2224.)
© 2005 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.03-1247
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Patching, G. R.
Right arrow Articles by Jordan, T. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Patching, G. R.
Right arrow Articles by Jordan, T. R.

Spatial Frequency Sensitivity Differences between Adults of Good and Poor Reading Ability

Geoffrey R. Patching and Timothy R. Jordan

From the Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; and the School of Psychology, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, United Kingdom.

PURPOSE. To determine whether normal adults of good and poor reading ability exhibit different patterns of sensitivity to spatial frequency, as previously found between dyslexic and nondyslexic control subjects.

METHODS. The visual acuity, spatial frequency sensitivity, and reading ability of 96 normal, nondyslexic adults was assessed. Participants were ranked according to reading ability. The top 50% were classified as good readers and the bottom 50% as poor readers.

RESULTS. Despite no differences in visual acuity, good and poor readers showed different patterns of spatial frequency sensitivity. In particular, compared with good readers, poor readers showed reduced sensitivity to spatial frequencies between 2 and 6 cyc/deg, and no differences in sensitivity were found at lower or higher spatial frequencies.

CONCLUSIONS. The findings indicate that spatial frequency sensitivity differences found previously between dyslexic and nondyslexic controls can extend to the normal (nondyslexic) adult population.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology