Comparison of reading speed in normal observers through different forms of equivalent power low vision devices

Compensation at near for vision loss can be achieved using a variety of equivalent forms of low vision magnifiers. Each has inherent advantages and disadvantages in terms of field, working distance, etc. We compared the reading speed of 60 trained, normal observers with 4 commonly prescribed types of low vision devices of +12 D equivalent power (spectacles, hand magnifier, stand magnifier, and telemicroscope) to their normal reading speed. Although there was individual variance in performance, reading speed with all the devices was generally within 20% of normal reading speed. Implications are that in terms of differences in reading speed for normals, the form of the low vision device is not as significant as acquiring proficiency in the use of the selected device.