In Reply We thank Elder and Gole for their thoughtful comments on our article.1 Citing Ayton et al,2 they contend that the Developmental Eye Movement (DEM) test is not a valid indicator of saccadic eye movements. The Ayton et al study,2 however, had its own limitations: (1) it included only typical readers (restricting variability and hence correlations); (2) it did not consider normative age-associated changes in eye movements; and (3) it used saccadic measures of gain, latency, and velocity, rather than typical measures associated with reading, such as fixations and regressions. A 2018 study by Moiroud et al3 in children with dyslexia used the DEM to document clear differences in fixation duration in comparison with age-matched and reading-age–matched controls. Furthermore, our DEM findings did not occur in isolation; they correlated moderately with Visagraph eye tracking measures obtained during reading at the participants’ reading level. Thus, we believe it would be premature to dismiss the DEM test as a measure of oculomotor functions associated with reading.
Raghuram A, Hunter DG, Waber DP. Accurately Assessing Visual Deficits in Children With Developmental Dyslexia—Reply. JAMA Ophthalmol. Published online May 30, 2019137(8):955–956. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.1712
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: