Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct;260(10):3387-3394.
doi: 10.1007/s00417-022-05665-y. Epub 2022 Apr 26.

Font effects on reading parameters: comparing Radner Reading Charts printed in Helvetica and Times Roman

Wolfgang Radner  1   2   3 , Michael Radner  4   5   6 , Barbara Daxer  4   5 , Thomas Benesch  7 , Armin Ettl  4   5
Affiliations

Font effects on reading parameters: comparing Radner Reading Charts printed in Helvetica and Times Roman

Wolfgang Radner et al. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the effect of font choice on reading parameters by using the RADNER Reading Charts printed in two fonts (Helvetica vs. Times Roman) equalized in terms of x-height.

Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of 40 participants with healthy eyes (18 to 60 years of age; mean: 42.13 ± 12.28 years). Reading performance was evaluated binocularly with RADNER Reading Charts printed in either Helvetica Neue (T1) Roman sans serif (Adobe) or Times New Roman PS Roman serif (Adobe). The test distance was 40 cm. Reading charts were presented in random order. Reading acuity (RA), mean reading speed of all sentences read (MEAN-ALL RS), mean reading speed from 0.8 logRAD to 0.3 logRAD (MEAN-RS), maximum reading speed (MAX-RS), and critical print size (CPS) were compared.

Results: The RA values obtained for the Helvetica and Times Roman fonts (in full logarithmic units of 0.1 logRAD) did not differ between the two fonts (mean for both fonts: - 0.128 ± 0.064 logRAD; 95% CI for both: - 0.148; - 0.107 logRAD). The differences in all other reading parameters between the two fonts were small and not statistically significant. The analyses revealed narrow confidence intervals and good coefficients of reliability. Except for the CPS (r = 0.49) and RA (equal for Helvetica and Times Roman), the correlations for all parameters were high, ranging from r = 0.92 to r = 0.98.

Conclusion: The equivalent reading performance obtained with Helvetica and Times Roman (when equalized in x-height and layout) makes these font types interchangeable as standards for reading charts.

Keywords: Equalized print sizes; Fonts effects on reading; Reading acuity; Reading charts; Standards of reading charts; x-height.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

W. Radner receives royalties for the Radner Reading Charts. All other authors have no financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The authors certify that they have no affiliation with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent licensing arrangements) or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Radner reading chart 1 (orig. size: DIN A4)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Graphic representation explaining the x-height: The x-height (height of the lowercase “x”) represents the distance between the baseline and the mean line for a font. Lowercase letters with round parts such as the “s” exceed these heights (overshoot these lines)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Bland–Altman plots comparing reading parameters obtained binocularly in 40 participants with healthy eyes reading RADNER Reading Charts printed in either Helvetica or Times Roman. (a) RA, (b) logRAD-score, (c) CPS, (d) MEAN-ALL RS, (e) MEAN-RS, and (f) MAX-RS
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bailey I, Lovie-Kitchin J. Visual acuity testing. From the laboratory to the clinic. Vision Res. 2013;90:2–9. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2013.05.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Radner W. Standardization of reading charts: a review of recent developments. Optom Vis Sci. 2019;96:768–779. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001436. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Radner W. Reading charts in ophthalmology. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;255:1465–1482. doi: 10.1007/s00417-017-3659-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Radner W. Near vision examination in presbyopia patients: do we need good homologated near vision charts? Eye Vis (Lond) 2016;3:29. doi: 10.1186/s40662-016-0061-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Colenbrander A. Consilium Ophthalmologicum Universale Visual Functions Committee, Visual Acuity Measurement Standard. Ital J Ophthalmol. 1988;11:5–19.

LinkOut - more resources