Treating reading difficulties with colour

A Delphi study to develop practical diagnostic guidelines for visual stress (pattern-related visual stress)

PURPOSE

Visual stress (VS) is characterised by symptoms of visual perceptual distortions and eyestrain when viewing text, symptoms that are alleviated by individually prescribed coloured filters. A recent review supports the existence of VS and its treatment, but noted that controversy remains, in part due to inconsistencies in the diagnosis of the condition. The present paper reviews the diagnostic criteria for VS in the literature and reports a Delphi analysis of the criteria currently used in clinical practice.

METHODS

Twenty-six eyecare practitioners were invited to participate in a Delphi study. They were selected because they were frequent prescribers of precision tinted lenses. In the first round they were sent a list of the indicators for which there is literature to suggest a relevance in the diagnosis of VS. The practitioners were invited to rank the indicators and add any additional criteria they use in diagnosis. In the second round a revised list was circulated, including items added from the responses in the first round.

RESULTS

The respondents included optometrists, orthoptists and opticians. In the first round the response rate was 85%. Ninety-one percent of those who participated in the first round also responded in the second round. Strong indicators in the second round included the symptom of words moving when reading, voluntary use of an overlay for a prolonged period, improved performance of ≥15% with an overlay on the Wilkins Rate of Reading test, and an abnormally high score on the Pattern Glare Test.

CONCLUSIONS

The strongest diagnostic criteria are combined in a diagnostic tool. This is proposed as a guide for clinical practice and further research.

The effect of coloured overlays and lenses on reading: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

There are many anecdotal claims and research reports that coloured lenses and overlays improve reading performance. Here we present the results of a systematic review of this literature and examine the quality of the evidence.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the literature concerning the effect of coloured lenses or overlays on reading performance by searching the PsychInfo, Medline and Embase databases. This revealed 51 published items (containing 54 data sets). Given that different systems are in use for issuing coloured overlays or lenses, we reviewed the evidence under four separate system headings (Intuitive, Irlen, Harris/Chromagen and Other), classifying each published item using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

Although the different colour systems have been subjected to different amounts of scientific scrutiny, the results do not differ according to the system type, or whether the sample under investigation was classified as having visual stress (or a similarly defined condition), reading difficulty, or both. The majority of studies are subject to 'high' or 'uncertain' risk of bias in one or more key aspects of study design or outcome, with studies at lower risk from bias providing less support for the benefit of coloured lenses/overlays on reading ability. While many studies report improvements with coloured lenses, the effect size is generally small and/or similar to the improvement found with a placebo condition. We discuss the strengths and shortcomings of the published literature and, whilst acknowledging the difficulties associated with conducting trials of this type, offer some suggestions about how future trials might be conducted.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with previous reviews and advice from several professional bodies, we conclude that the use of coloured lenses or overlays to ameliorate reading difficulties cannot be endorsed and that any benefits reported by individuals in clinical settings are likely to be the result of placebo, practice or Hawthorne effects.

A systematic review of controlled trials on visual stress using Intuitive Overlays or the Intuitive Colorimeter

Claims that coloured filters aid reading date back 200 years and remain controversial. Some claims, for example, that more than 10% of the general population and 50% of people with dyslexia would benefit from coloured filters lack sound evidence and face validity. Publications with such claims typically cite research using methods that have not been described in the scientific literature and lack a sound aetiological framework. Notwithstanding these criticisms, some researchers have used more rigorous selection criteria and methods of prescribing coloured filters that were developed at a UK Medical Research Council unit and which have been fully described in the scientific literature. We review this research and disconfirm many of the more extreme claims surrounding this topic. This literature indicates that a minority subset of dyslexics (circa 20%) may have a condition described as visual stress which most likely results from a hyperexcitability of the visual cortex. Visual stress is characterised by symptoms of visual perceptual distortions, headaches, and eyestrain when viewing repetitive patterns, including lines of text. This review indicates that visual stress is distinct from, although sometimes co-occurs with, dyslexia. Individually prescribed coloured filters have been shown to improve reading performance in people with visual stress, but are unlikely to influence the phonological and memory deficits associated with dyslexia and therefore are not a treatment for dyslexia. This review concludes that larger and rigorous randomised controlled trials of interventions for visual stress are required. Improvements in the diagnosis of the condition are also a priority.

Judging the Intensity of Emotional Expression in Faces: the Effects of Colored Tints on Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorder

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often show atypical processing of facial expressions, which may result from visual stress. In the current study, children with ASD and matched controls judged which member of a pair of faces displayed the more intense emotion. Both faces showed anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness or surprise but to different degrees. Faces were presented on a monitor that was tinted either gray or with a color previously selected by the participant individually as improving the clarity of text. Judgments of emotional intensity improved significantly with the addition of the preferred colored tint in the ASD group but not in controls, a result consistent with a link between visual stress and impairments in processing facial expressions in individuals with ASD.

Lexical decisions in adults with low and high susceptibility to pattern-related visual stress: a preliminary investigation

Pattern-related visual stress (PRVS) is a form of sensory hypersensitivity that some people experience when viewing high contrast repeating patterns, notably alternating dark and light stripes. Those susceptible to PRVS typically have a strong aversion to such stimuli, and this is often accompanied by experiences of visual discomfort and disturbance. The patterns most likely to elicit symptoms of PRVS have a square-wave grating configuration of spatial frequency ~3 cycles/degree. Such stimuli are characteristic of printed text in which lines of words and the spaces between them present a high contrast grating-like stimulus. Consequently, much printed reading material has the potential to elicit PRVS that may impair reading performance, and this problem appears to be common in individuals with reading difficulties including dyslexia. However, the manner in which PRVS affects reading ability is unknown. One possibility is that the early sensory visual stress may interfere with the later cognitive word recognition stage of the reading process, resulting in reading performance that is slower and/or less accurate. To explore the association of PRVS with word recognition ability, lexical decision performance (speed and accuracy) to words and pronounceable non-words was measured in two groups of adults, having low and high susceptibility to PRVS. Results showed that lexical decisions were generally faster but less accurate in high-PRVS, and also that high-PRVS participants made decisions significantly faster for words than for non-words, revealing a strong lexicality effect that was not present in low-PRVS. These findings are novel and, as yet, unconfirmed by other studies.