Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41298969›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Foveal crowding increases with age under limited viewing conditions.

Noah Rappeport, Maria Lev, Uri Polat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Noah RappeportSchool of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Maria LevSchool of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Uri PolatSchool of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. uri.polat@biu.ac.il.

Funding

Israel Science Foundation Grant No. 2494/21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aging is associated with changes in visual function, even in the absence of ocular pathology. While visual acuity remains largely intact, older individuals frequently report difficulties with real-world visual tasks. One potential contributing factor is visual crowding, the inability to recognize a target in the presence of surrounding clutter. Although peripheral crowding has been widely studied, foveal crowding was once considered controversial and has only been observed under specific conditions. Its relationship with aging, however, remains poorly understood. This study investigates the impact of aging on foveal crowding under both unlimited and limited viewing conditions. Thirty-three participants (ages 20-89) completed a letter recognition task with varying target-flanker spacing. Under unlimited viewing conditions, crowding effects were insignificant across age groups. However, when a brief presentation time was introduced, older participants exhibited a significantly greater crowding effect, with a pronounced decline in visual acuity. Reaction time also increased with age, particularly in the unlimited viewing condition, where older adults took longer to respond despite maintaining high accuracy. These findings suggest that aging primarily affects foveal crowding under time-limited conditions, likely due to declines in processing speed. The results highlight the importance of considering temporal constraints in visual assessments of older adults, with potential implications for daily activities such as reading and driving.

Indexed as

AgingFovea CentralisVisual PerceptionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPattern Recognition, VisualReaction TimeVisual AcuityYoung AdultAgeingCrowdingReaction timeVisual processing

Identifiers

PMID41298969
PMCPMC12658062

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.