Key takeaways:

• Researchers found patients with glaucoma read slower than healthy controls.
• Patients with glaucoma have lower accuracy in landing on targets.

Patients with glaucoma displayed impaired reading performance and increased saccades, according to a cross-sectional study published in Journal of Glaucoma.

“The ability to read is essential for many aspects of daily living, including work-related activities, driving and shopping,” Mariana Chiba Ikeda, MD, of Federal University of São Paulo, and colleagues, wrote. ”... With the growing reliance on computers, smartphones and tablets, reading has become indispensable for online banking, managing household utility bills, insurance, entertainment and communication.”

Data derived from Ikeda MC, et al. J Glaucoma. 2026;doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000002727.

Ikeda and colleagues sought to determine how glaucoma inhibits reading ability, assessing how saccadic and fixation behaviors are presented in patients with glaucoma compared with healthy controls.

The analysis included 118 patients: 57 (mean age, 66.5 years) with glaucoma — 70% of whom had primary open angle glaucoma and 30% primary angle closure glaucoma —and 54 healthy (mean age, 61.8 years).

All participants underwent left-eye examinations of best corrected visual acuity, extraocular motility, anterior segment biomicroscopy, Goldmann applanation tonometry, gonioscopy and fundus examination. Additionally, researchers assessed cognition with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and contrast sensitivity with the Freiburg Visual Acuity and Contrast Test.

The study participants completed five slides of the Minnesota Low Vision Reading Test on a computer, during which researchers used an eye tracker to analyze saccade and fixation patterns in addition to reading speed in words per minute (wpm).

BCVA was significantly worse in the glaucoma group (0.18 ± 0.16 logMAR vs. 0.04 ± 0.10 logMAR; P < .001), as was contrast sensitivity (1.57 ± 0.34 logCS vs. 1.84 ± 0.17 logCS; P < .001). Results of the cognitive assessment were comparable between groups.

The reading test results indicated that the participants with glaucoma read at a slower speed than those in the control group (range, 67 ± 29 to 74 ± 32 wpm vs. 82 ± 24 to 94 ± 24 wpm).

During the reading test, participants with glaucoma also exhibited on average 50% more saccades (range, 30 ± 23 to 33 ± 2) than the control participants (range, 19 ± 8 to 23 ± 12).

In contrast, the number of fixations did not differ greatly between the groups; however, participants with glaucoma exhibited a greater number of fixations on slide four (24 ± 16 and 17 ± 7; P = .031). Fixation duration was generally comparable between groups, although patients with glaucoma experienced longer fixations for slide three (0.27 ± 0.10 s and 0.25 ± 0.07 s; P = .038).

Overall, Ikeda and colleagues concluded that patients with glaucoma read at a slower rate and exhibited more frequent saccadic movements than those who do not have glaucoma, with a significant, proportional correlation between saccades and a slower reading speed.

“Individuals with glaucoma have lower accuracy in landing on targets, which may explain their slower reading speed,” the researchers wrote.

Ikeda and colleagues noted study limitations, including different BCVA between the groups and that they limited their analyses to the left eye.

Future studies should examine the connection between the location of visual field loss and reading, experiment with different media (online or print) or observe how ocular drops impact reading speed, they added.

“It is important for health care professionals to recognize the potential impact of glaucoma on reading,” Ikeda and colleagues wrote.