Comparing the directional effect of number calling on the developmental eye movement test results in Hebrew-speaking children.
children
developmental eye movement test
eye movements
reading direction
saccades
Journal
Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)
ISSN: 1475-1313
Titre abrégé: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8208839
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2023
07 2023
Historique:
revised:
08
04
2023
received:
03
01
2023
accepted:
10
04
2023
medline:
7
6
2023
pubmed:
21
4
2023
entrez:
21
04
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the directional effect of number calling on the developmental eye movement (DEM) test in Hebrew-speaking children who read from right (R) to left (L). Previously, the DEM has been studied in nine languages, all read from L to R and has never been tested on Hebrew speakers. Healthy Hebrew-speaking children, aged 6-13 years were divided into two age groups (6-9, 10-13 years). Children had near visual acuity of 0.00 logMAR or better, no strabismus, stereoacuity ≤100 s of arc and near point of convergence ≤6 cm. The DEM test was performed twice, from R to L and L to R, randomly. Comparisons between age groups for horizontal and vertical reading speed and ratio between reading directions were analysed, as well as the correlation between age and directionality. A total of 92 children were included; 48 and 44 in the 6-9 and 10-13 year age groups, respectively. The mean vertical and horizontal time for both directions (R to L and L to R) in the younger group was significantly slower than the older group (p < 0.001). The older children showed no significant difference in the horizontal time reading from L to R and R to L. However, the younger children read more quickly in their native direction (R-L; 71.5 ± 25.9 s) compared with L-R (76.0 ± 31.4 s, p = 0.01). In both directions, the ratio was significantly higher in the younger age group. A negative correlation was demonstrated between age and reading ratio (p = 0.001). A clear directional preference of R to L was found in children under 10 years of age. We suggest administering the test from R to L in young Hebrew-speaking children. These results may also apply to young Arab- and Persian-speaking children who also read from R to L.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
623-628Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists.
Références
Richman JE, Garzia RP. Developmental eye movement test (DEM): Examiner's booklet. Mishawaka: Bernell Corporation; 1987.
Garzia RP, Richman JE, Nicholson SB, Gaines CS. A new visual-verbal saccade test: the development eye movement test (DEM). J Am Optom Assoc. 1990;61:124-35.
Tassinari JT, DeLand P. Developmental eye movement test: reliability and symptomatology. Optometry. 2005;76:387-99.
Ayton LN, Abel LA, Fricke TR, McBrien NA. Developmental eye movement test: what is it really measuring? Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86:722-30.
Facchin A, Maffioletti S, Carnevali T. The developmental eye movement (DEM) test: normative data for Italian population. Optom Vis Dev. 2012;43:162-79.
Orlansky G, Hopkins KB, Mitchell GL, Huang K, Frazier M, Heyman C, et al. Reliability of the developmental eye movement test. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88:1507-19.
Tanke N, Barsingerhorn AD, Boonstra FN, Goossens J. Visual fixations rather than saccades dominate the developmental eye movement test. Sci Rep. 2021;11:1162. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-020-80870-5
Facchin A, Maffioletti S. The reliability of the DEM test in the clinical environment. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1279. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2018.01279
Eviatr Z. Reading direction and attention: effects on lateralized ignoring. Brain Cogn. 1995;29:137-50.
Pollatsek A, Bolozky S, Well AD, Rayner K. Asymmetries in the perceptual span for Israeli readers. Brain Lang. 1981;14:174-80.
Facchin A. Spotlight on the developmental eye movement (DEM) test. Clin Optom. 2021;13:73-81.
Moiroud L, Royo A, Bucci MP. The developmental eye movement test in French children. Optom Vis Sci. 2020;97:978-83.
Fernandez-Velazquez FJ, Fernandez-Fidalgo MJ. Do DEM test scores change with respect to the language? Norms for Spanish-speaking population. Optom Vis Sci. 1995;72:902-6.
Jiménez R, González MD, Pérez MA, Garcia JA. Evolution of accommodative function and development of ocular movements in children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003;23:97-107.
Pang PC, Lam CS, Woo GC. The developmental eye movement (DEM) test and Cantonese-speaking children in Hong Kong SAR, China. Clin Exp Optom. 2010;93:213-23.
Okumura TWE. Visual skills in children with learning difficulties. Tokyo: Meijitosho Shuppan Corp; 2010.
Baptista AM, de Sousa RA, Casal CC, Marques RJ, da Silva CM. Norms for the developmental eye movement test for Portuguese children. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88:864-71.
Serdjukova J, Ekimane L, Valeinis J, Skilters J, Krumina G. How strong and weak readers perform on the developmental eye movement test (DEM): norms for Latvian school-aged children. Read Writ. 2017;30:233-52.
Xie Y, Shi C, Tong M, Zhang M, Li T, Xu Y, et al. Developmental eye movement (DEM) test norms for Mandarin Chinese-speaking Chinese children. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0148481. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0148481
Medland C, Walter H, Woodhouse JM. Eye movements and poor reading: does the developmental eye movement test measure cause or effect? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2010;30:740-7.
Shaki S, Fischer MH, Göbel SM. Direction counts: a comparative study of spatially directional counting biases in cultures with different reading directions. J Exp Child Psychol. 2012;112:275-81.
Kazandjian S, Cavézian C, Zivotofsky AZ, Chokron S. Bisections in two languages: when number processing, spatial representation, and habitual reading direction interact. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48:4031-7.
Abed F. Cultural influences on visual scanning patterns. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1991;22:525-34.
Shaki S, Fischer MH. Reading space into numbers - a cross-linguistic comparison of the SNARC effect. Cognition. 2008;108:590-9.